Big Ten Expansion Warning System Reaches DEFCON 2
by Hawkeye State on Dec 15, 2009 10:30 AM CST
104 comments
Remember the "back burner" talk of the Big Ten adding a 12th school? It's not so implausible anymore. This is what happens when expansion stops being hypothetical and starts getting real, per Teddy Greenstein at the Trib:
According to a league official, the Big Ten will release a statement Tuesday saying the matter has moved to the front burner.
The first sign of change came from former Wisconsin coach Barry Alvarez, who told Wisconsin's athletic board on Friday that Delany "is going to take this year to really be more aggressive about it. I just think everybody feels [expansion] is the direction to go, coaches and administrators."
A league source on Monday cited a "growing groundswell" of support among athletic directors for expansion.
The candidates have been debated since Penn State joined the conference 20 years ago, and have been beaten to death by the Big Ten blogosphere in the past few years (most recently, and most thoroughly, by We Will Always Have Tempe). We know the usual suspects: Notre Dame, Pitt, Syracuse, Rutgers, Missouri (who, according to a post at the Kansas City Star, would be open to the idea), etc. Things to keep in mind if this, in fact, goes down:
(1) NERDS! Regardless of what is said, here and elsewhere, about a Big Ten Championship Game as the holy grail, no expansion will take place unless the eggheads approve. Unlike the Big XII or SEC, the CIC (the Big Ten's academic arm, which includes the 11 member schools plus the University of Chicago) holds veto power over any choice, and will freely exercise it over any institution it deems unfit for entry.
(2) NERDS! Part Deux. There has been extensive discussion of U.S. News rankings (or this guy's inexplicable reliance on Nebraska's number of Academic All-Americans) when comparing possible expansion candidates' academic standing with the rest of the conference. This is not the proper metric. The CIC is not primarily interested in undergraduate program rankings, as undergraduate programs are secondary to their goal: Research. If a school is to be accepted, it must have a vibrant graduate program churning out high-quality academic research. In fact, it's this criteria that makes some people think Notre Dame, a fine academic institution but not research-heavy, might not be the white knight that the athletics fans believe it is.
(3) The Old Guard. OPS detailed it earlier this week, but it bears repeating. The Big Ten is not about to give up tradition for the sake of expansion. That means Michigan will play Ohio State and Michigan State, Indiana will play Purdue, Illinois will play Northwestern, and the Iowa-Minnesota-Wisconsin troika will take place annually. This puts a serious kink in any plan to split the conference geographically should another eastern team be added. Some have suggested an ACC-style split, based less on geography and more on historical power, but such a split would still demand UM-OSU-MSU be placed in the same division, requiring Penn State to either join them and tilt the scales in the east's favor (and, as entertaining as the thought may be to Iowa fans envisioning annual championship game trips, would initially create a Big XII North situation) or give up the land grant trophy (I know that's not a dealbreaker) and join the western teams (which might well be one, given the potential travel issues).
(4) Get Creative. Did you know Texas almost joined the Big Ten fifteen years ago? Had it not been for a moratorium on expansion post-PSU and some serious questions over travel expenses (questions which would be less of an issue today, as income from revenue sports grows exponentially and travel costs fail to keep up), we could be playing in that behemoth of a conference today. The knee-jerk response is to list the institutions in border states which might meet the criteria, but don't be surprised if the final selection is someone outside the current list of candidates. Probably not Texas, but someone of that ilk looking to improve their standing academically as well as athletically.
I've learned not to get my hopes up, but Teddy Greenstein doesn't have a history of making empty threats. It looks like this could finally go down, making it the most entertaining offseason in recent memory.
0 recs |
104 comments
|
Email
Print
Comments
As exciting as this is..
Im really not sure how I feel about an expansion. Im an Iowan, and as an Iowan I hate change. If I had a say, I would bring up UNI.
by TAMPAHAWK on Dec 15, 2009 10:38 AM CST via mobile reply actions
That's ridiculous.
First of all, no one would want to travel to Cedar Falls for a game, EVER. Also, I see no reason for the BigTen to bring up a I-AA school just for the sake of expansion. If this is going to be done, it needs to be done properly, a I-AA school does nothing to benefit the BigTen.
by The Mexican't on Dec 15, 2009 11:25 AM CST up reply actions
Can't we just kick PSU out and slap Barry Alvarez?
I don’t want expansion, and I don’t want a cash grab (championship game) because everyone else does it. I do want to play Indiana every year, though.
Everyone fails. The successful learn from their failures. I just wish we'd quit giving ourselves so many learning opportunities.
by WhiteSpeedReceiver on Dec 15, 2009 10:40 AM CST reply actions
I say we kick you out!
You can’t win a conference championship without Clem Haskins!
And I really hate rodents!
"Andrew Jones....SEND IT IN, BIG FELLA!" - Bill Raftery, 4/2/09
by ReadingRambler on Dec 15, 2009 11:24 AM CST up reply actions
Now now gentlemen...
Lets settle down and agree that it should be jNWU to get kicked out. After all they are used to losing…right?
Not since 1995.
Especially at Ryan Field West!
by LincolnParkWildcat on Dec 15, 2009 1:26 PM CST up reply actions
Kinnick North
was not about the final socres of the games. It was the result of Iowa fans showing up at the Metrodome in huge numbers. Numbers so large that Minnesota tried to get creative with ticket sales policies to try and control it. It hasn’t really worked.
And of course, we tore down their damn goal posts in 2002.
Go ahead and try that at Kinnick. Seriously. We’ll find out if you really do bleed purple.
In 100 years, we'll all be dead.
I still chuckle at the video of the goal posts getting ripped out at the crapdome
That’s not possible to do in Evanston, trust me.
by LincolnParkWildcat on Dec 15, 2009 7:02 PM CST up reply actions
Good to see you guys show up in the same numbers at both stadiums
See ya at Kinnick East next year!
Before you respond, let me remind you: Brian Cook called me smug, which makes me the Obama of smugness. I'm basically Smugbama.
by Hawkeye State on Dec 15, 2009 3:06 PM CST up reply actions
Man, I only called your ballot smug. I find you yourself irascible and charming.
by Brian @ MGoBlog on Dec 15, 2009 4:08 PM CST up reply actions
I am looking forward to the trip to Ryan Field already...
and I was merely referencing what your cheerleaders seem to feel. Although you guys are definitely kicking our ass this year in basketball, no doubt.
Yes...
As a Hawkeye fan living in Chicago at the moment, it will be oh so sweet to hop on the L, and take it up to jNWU. I’ll probably be able to get a decent ticket off a co-worker for about $20 too, making it so sweeter.
They took the bar, the whole fucking bar!
by recoveringfratguy on Dec 15, 2009 5:02 PM CST up reply actions
Beer and smack talk on the Red/Purple line at 9 am... cant wait
by LincolnParkWildcat on Dec 15, 2009 7:05 PM CST up reply actions
That's what I call "Wednesday"
Before you respond, let me remind you: Brian Cook called me smug, which makes me the Obama of smugness. I'm basically Smugbama.
by Hawkeye State on Dec 16, 2009 8:49 AM CST up reply actions
Losing to who?
There are 2 year olds who have never seen Northwestern lose to Iowa.
Hell, there are 7 year old 2nd graders who have only seen it happen once in their lifetimes, in 2007….
That may not necessarily be a good thing
Is the Brewster still your coach today?
"Wow. You know you have problems when even the cheerleaders know you suck." ~ Pain in the Sash
by Leftcoast Hawk on Dec 15, 2009 4:25 PM CST up reply actions
So Texas was kind of the dirty slut of league expansion?
Fooled around with everyone before settling down with the most desperate suitor who constantly bought her expensive gifts and kowtowed to every request.
I ate the blue ones ... they taste like burning.
by HoyaGoon on Dec 15, 2009 12:38 PM CST up reply actions 1 recs
What's sad...
… is how quickly the dirty slut became the pimp.
by RPT on Dec 15, 2009 5:35 PM CST up reply actions 1 recs
Good for academics and also we'd all have a change to beat up on the Fighting Jim Harbaughs every year.
Seriously, who on earth needs a $50,000 bathroom?
Michigan can take their revenge on their wayward alum… "He’s no longer a Michigan man… "
by LincolnParkWildcat on Dec 15, 2009 7:11 PM CST up reply actions
Honestly, I really don't care all that much who the new kid would be.
I guess Mizzou would be my first choice, but… whatever.
Really, it’s the last clause of the last sentence in HS’s post that appeals to me more than anything.
by Bucketochicken on Dec 15, 2009 11:07 AM CST reply actions
Can you imagine the shitstorm that would come from Bill Lynch?
"You don't become a Hawkeye fan, You're born with Black and Gold in your veins." - Me
by BStylin Hawkye on Dec 15, 2009 11:10 AM CST up reply actions
I see stealing a Big 12 team as an option
add Kansas or OSU to the list. The Big 12 can replace them with BCS #2 (after January 8th) TCU.
by YouCanPutYourEddsInIt on Dec 15, 2009 11:34 AM CST reply actions
But then who comes up to the north division?
4 teams in texas, two in oklahoma. Lots of rivalries across the board in that south division right now. But I do like that idea. Then Boise can go into the Mountain West and all will be right with the world.
I think the addition of Boise to the MWC may be enough to convince TCU to stay
They’d still have a shot at being the top dog, and adding Boise would give the conference a serious shot at becoming an AQ conference. Of course, the BCS may not be interested in 7 AQ’s, but maybe the Big East starts to suffer with the (assumed) decline of Cincinnati and the BCS drops them for the MWC.
If TCU doesn’t make the jump, then the Big XII probably stays in Texas and scoops up Houston. Or, if they get creative, maybe they could snatch the WAC’s other recent success story, Nevada.
Basically, a BigTen expansion looks like it’ll send the NCAA into a giant mess of re-alignment, and could make for a fantastic offseason development.
by The Mexican't on Dec 15, 2009 1:20 PM CST up reply actions
I want expansion
Just not expansion to add another team.
I want to expand the conference schedule to play all Ten other teams once in football and twice in basketball. So we don’t play maine or ark. st anymore, big deal (and it would give the lickliters a better chance to win a big ten game).
However, If we go to twelve and have one of those “awesome” championship games can we make sure its played outdoors, since every Big Ten school plays outdoors. Don’t bring it inside like the sec, indoor football sucks.
Its a funny story actually.
by Wad on Dec 15, 2009 11:35 AM CST reply actions 1 recs
Indoor football does indeed suck
Thus, no Indianapolis. I would be cool with Soldier Field.
"Never mistake motion for action." - Ernest Hemingway
I think Indy would be fine.
I’ve heard nothing but good things about Lucas Oil Stadium. A rotation would be nice, but if the BigTen decided that Indianapolis was the best choice, I don’t think too many fans would be opposed to the idea.
by The Mexican't on Dec 15, 2009 11:09 PM CST up reply actions
Interesting - based on US News (Oct. 23, 2009)
Ranking of Top 200 Worldwide Universities
7. U of Chicago
19. Michigan
32. Northwestern
61. Wisconsin
63. Illinois
87. Purdue
105. Minnesota
120. Penn State
129. Ohio State
193. Indiana
NR – Michigan State, Iowa
Others:
114. Pittsburgh
183. Rutgers
199. Notre Dame
NR – Syracuse, Missouri
by Pubes in Pink Urinals on Dec 15, 2009 11:42 AM CST via mobile reply actions
Don't use the worlwide rankings
they use different criteria than the Big Ten will use. Primarily the Big Ten will be focused on the school being research oriented, Tier 1, excellent UG education, certain grad schools intact (med, law to start) and faculty analysis.
"I think it's safe to say our concerns are many." -- Kirk Ferentz
by StoopsMyAss on Dec 15, 2009 12:14 PM CST up reply actions
For entertainment purposes only.
I do think Pitt makes most sense logistically. Not to mention established academics and athletics along with natural rival with PSU. Athletic strength is cyclical, location and academics is not.
by Pubes in Pink Urinals on Dec 15, 2009 12:20 PM CST via mobile up reply actions
I would go with Syracuse
that has numerous benefits. NY/NE market (now you are looking at playing in Yankee Stadium once Syracuse rights the ship in football and this would go a long way). Pitt has the advantage of being public but we do not need Pennsylvania…we have the state locked up already with PSU.
"I think it's safe to say our concerns are many." -- Kirk Ferentz
by StoopsMyAss on Dec 15, 2009 12:22 PM CST up reply actions
6 of one, half dozen of the other.
I think IF it happens, it is between Pitt/’cuse.
by Pubes in Pink Urinals on Dec 15, 2009 12:40 PM CST via mobile up reply actions
Not to mention
Syracuse played almost half a Big XI schedule this year. I think they had three non-conference games against Big XI teams, not to mention the home and home with Iowa a couple years ago.
by shada's revenge on Dec 15, 2009 5:23 PM CST up reply actions
U S News rankings are for Mom and Dad
to use in deciding where little doody will matriculate. Academics, such as the CIC types think they are bogus.
"Never mistake motion for action." - Ernest Hemingway
Get creative?
Now that the talks are heating up, the expansion is reaching blogs outside the BigTen, and With Leather has an interesting idea.
Vanderbilt is already a member of the AAU, and although the distance is a bit of an issue, it is an interesting thought.
North/South divisions could then be:
North: Iowa, Minnesota, Wisconsin, MSU, UM, Northwestern
South: Illinois, Indiana, Purdue, OSU, PSU, Vanderbilt
I’ve no idea how the inter-division rivalries would shake out, but a few are, at least, obvious.
Vandy's athletics
are, umm, sub-par.
by Pubes in Pink Urinals on Dec 15, 2009 12:02 PM CST via mobile up reply actions
Although the discussions here are athletics driven,
I don’t think the university heads are going to focus primarily on athletics. As HS made obvious in the article, the CIC will squash any school that doesn’t meet their standards. Now, I’ve no idea how well Vandy’s graduate programs are regarded, and they’re clearly not an elite athletic school, but the thought is interesting, nonetheless.
I imagine that BigTen coaches may enjoy the presence in the south, and Vanderbilt may be more willing to leave the SEC than Mizzou the Big XII.
by The Mexican't on Dec 15, 2009 12:18 PM CST up reply actions
Not sure Vandy would leave the SEC
Too long a history with the league, plus I think the SEC would fight tooth and nail to keep them in, the SEC East needs a constant punching bag and the SEC REALLY needs the academic boost that Vandy brings to the table.
I ate the blue ones ... they taste like burning.
And jNWU ????
The only recent they’re beating us in football is because we are not taking them seriously enough; they’ve replaced Iowa State as Our Annual Problem.
"Wow. You know you have problems when even the cheerleaders know you suck." ~ Pain in the Sash
by Leftcoast Hawk on Dec 15, 2009 4:34 PM CST up reply actions
They've only recently been beating us
God, my grammar is horrible today.
"Wow. You know you have problems when even the cheerleaders know you suck." ~ Pain in the Sash
by Leftcoast Hawk on Dec 15, 2009 4:35 PM CST up reply actions
All your football program are belong to us.
Before you respond, let me remind you: Brian Cook called me smug, which makes me the Obama of smugness. I'm basically Smugbama.
by Hawkeye State on Dec 16, 2009 8:51 AM CST up reply actions
Big 14?
Heck, why stop at 12? May sound crazy, but what about adding 3 and have 14?
Add Nebraska and Missouri and ???.
You would have rabid, devoted, traveliing NU fans [remember the Sea of Red at Notre Dame a few years back] and it would add Kansas City and cement rest/most of Mo as a market. Put them in a west division with Iowa, Minn. Wisc., Illinois and NW. There is already a bit of rivalry/hatred between Iowa and both NU and Missouri. Iowa could still play Minn and Wisc. Enhance/keep the growing the rivalry between NU and Missouri. Reignite NU rivalry with Minn. Keep the growing rivalry between Illinois and Missouri. Really don’t add that much more in travel costs/geographic footprint, but gain a lot. Obviously market wise, Nebraska would be by far the smallest, but you cannot take simply state population numbers at face value with their program. NU also competes at a high level in most sports. NU has also begin to build a good sized research park on campus (not sure about MU – Husker fan myself) .
In the East, you would allow the 2 Michigan and Indiana schools to remain instate rivals, keep Mich-OSU, etc..
To add one school to the east division, you would have many options. Pitt, Lousiville, Syracuse, ND (probably most logical – imagine the money rolling in w/ Nebraska, ND, Mich, OSU, et al ), Cincinnati, Marshall, etc.
On one level, adding Notre Dame makes sense. They obviously has prestige, history (though not so good recently), name recognition, etc. They also already typically play 3-4 Big 10 teams as it is. Travel costs for them might be lower as they are in the BIg East for other sports. And it would also add a huge nationwide fan base.
Schedule wise, it would allow for 6 in division games, 3 home, 3 away. I would say play 4 from the other divison. It would allow for an even 2 home, 2 away. Obviously with only 2 extra games (in a 12 game schedule), there may be one less home game, as many times bigger schools have 3 home games out of the 4 non conference games. But it would also help eliminate some of the FCS and other canon fodder opponents, making each conference game a bigger deal, more hype, tv revenue, etc.
by jasonk5 on Dec 15, 2009 12:22 PM CST reply actions 1 recs
Though it will never happen
I gotta say that I like this idea. Especially in terms of rehashing old rivalries (Mizzou – LOLphers, e.g.)
by hawkeyeguy85 on Dec 15, 2009 12:26 PM CST up reply actions
Missouri or Rutgers...
both fit the academic profile and both open new media markets.
"I'm not doing any good back here."
As a Mizzou alum, but formally of the east coast (NYC market)
I guess I just dont see Rutgers opening that market much. First, because I think you really already have all the market share you are going to get out of it. I grew up a Penn State fan in the 80’s in CT because…they were on TV…ALL THE TIME. Rutgers or Syracuse is really not going to add that many sets, if any, because I truly believe you have what you can get (because no one in NYC actually cares about college football as it is). In fact, in reading another point by someone else, there are probably as many Big 10 grads in the area already.
As for Missouri, they would complete the STL market (currently split with Illinois), travel across the state and give the conference some (but probably not more than about a third) of the KC market. All in all though, that is some pretty good TV set addition.
For academics, Mizzou has slipped in the past few years (though enrollment is through the roof). Inclusion in the consortium would certainly work to re-enhance some (or all) of that lost stature to where we would likely fall in line with the middle to bottom of the conference. Geographically, it is strangely almost equal in average distance to opponents for us and not a terrible trip for the conference (is actually closer to State College than Minneapolis is)
Just some thoughts, but I (for one) do not buy the TV set addition from Rutgers piece of the argument.
"Write a wise saying and your name will live forever." - Anonymous
Rock M Nation
Good point
Back in the 60s, 70s, and 80s Penn State and Notre Dame were the lead College Football stories in the Sunday New York Times sports section. How much that has changed I don’t know. I do know that 30 years ago State College was lousy with folks from Jersey or Long Island — I suspect that this is likely still the case.
"Never mistake motion for action." - Ernest Hemingway
What's in a name...
I’m curious…would they continue to call the conference “the Big Ten” with twelve members? Why don’t they just call it the Big Twelve….oh, right. “The Big Ten Plus Two?”;“The Slow and Unathletic Twelve?” ; “The Dirty Dozen?”
"Conan, what is best in life?" "Crush your enemies, see them driven before you, and hear the lamentation of the women"
by Natty Bumppo's Murderous Gaze on Dec 15, 2009 12:50 PM CST reply actions
Mizzou and North-South
I put up my idea over here — add Mizzou (which seems plausible), and split into North-South divisions with each team getting a protected cross-divisional rival.
North: Iowa, Wisconsin, Minnesota, Northwestern, Michigan, Michigan State
South: Mizzou, Illinois, Purdue, Indiana, Ohio State, Penn State
Rivalries: Iowa-Mizzou (border war), Northwestern-Illinois, OSU-Michigan, MSU-PSU (because we have to preserve the Land Grant Trophy at all costs….jesus is that thing ugly), and a pick’em for the final two of Minnesota/Wisconsin v. Indiana/Purdue.
The best thing about this: you save EVERY protected Big Ten rivalry currently in existence, EXCEPT for Northwestern-Purdue. (And as a Northwestern fan, I couldn’t care less about Purdue….it’s much more interesting playing Iowa and Wisconsin annually).
PLUS you’d guarantee three trophy games would be annual (as opposed to occasional): Illibuck (Illini-OSU), the Little Brown Jug (Minny-Michigan), and the Purdue Cannon (Purdue-Illinois) all become annual games under the plan.
This seems like the best plan if Mizzou is added
And I’m sure the PSU fans would be excited about the potential to miss Iowa every few years…
by The Mexican't on Dec 15, 2009 1:27 PM CST up reply actions
Iowa - Minnesota?
There’s no way that’s gonna end.
/O'keefe'd
by Smokin Herb Grigsby on Dec 15, 2009 1:40 PM CST up reply actions
It wouldn't.
Minnesota-Iowa would be part of the North division’s inter-divisional games. Along with Iowa-Wisconsin, Iowa-Northwestern, Iowa-Michigan, and Iowa-Michigan State.
I don't know how I missed that...
but good call. I like this idea… I tried toying with a bunch of different concepts and this is essentially what it boiled down to, but you did a better job of summing it up.
All things considered, Mizzou is the most logical option, and I like the idea of Iowa adding a rivalry game with them. The big question is how the Big10+2 brass would solve problems like the 2008 Big XII conundrum of UT-TTU-OU. That’s the main reason I like what we have going on currently, but that’s one of my only qualms with expansion.
/O'keefe'd
by Smokin Herb Grigsby on Dec 15, 2009 2:53 PM CST up reply actions
While it would never happen
…and while it wouldn’t help your UT-TTU-OU problem, I’d also love to see the Big Ten go REALLY bold (and offer a big middle finger to the rest of the country, especially That School in South Bend) and play 10 conference games in this line up.
Each team would get 5 home, 5 aways, it would allow you to play every team but one head-to-head (5 intradivision, 1 protected cross-division rival, 4 rotating cross-divisional games). Then each team would have 2 home non-con games.
This will never happen, though — even though it would be awesome for the best football conference on the planet. One reason? That School in South Bend is never going to agree to playing only road games at Michigan, at Purdue, at Michigan State. And those schools wouldn’t go to a 6 game home schedule to accomodate TSiSB, or drop TSiSB from their schedules.
If only...
That would be the perfect solution but there are just too many roadblocks.
/O'keefe'd
by Smokin Herb Grigsby on Dec 15, 2009 3:37 PM CST up reply actions
No true fan...
…of any Big Ten school would be against playing 10 conference games in a 12-team conference, I imagine. The conference games are sooooo much better than non-conference games.
I imagine many fans would even be willing to do it if it meant only 6 home games some seasons….
I would go for this.
The only true way to be the best of your conference is to play everyone.
"You don't become a Hawkeye fan, You're born with Black and Gold in your veins." - Me
by BStylin Hawkye on Dec 15, 2009 3:58 PM CST up reply actions
Hold on there hoss. Fans are one thing, $$$$ are another. Current sked is 8 conference (4-4) and most teams have 3 or all 4 non-con at home. Need 7-8 home to meet revenue targets, particularly if you’re splitting revenue with 1 other school. Now that Iowa basketball is a non-revenue sport, they’ll look at this hard from the cash flow side. Why else is IU playing a home game v. PSU at Danny Snyder world? And to see why this matters, Iowa’s traveling party to the Orange Bowl is 600. They’re budgeting $2.5 million.
Other Revenue
At least Iowa wrestling is a revenue sport. ;-)
by BHGPprovidesLaughs on Dec 15, 2009 5:02 PM CST up reply actions
Incest is not always a good idea.
Everyone needs a less than marquee opponent on the schedule, and two non-conf is not enough non-conf games.
Keep in mind there are a lot of I-AA schools that depend on Big 10 non-conf games to stay in business in football (or at least keep the bleeding down to a minimum).
"Wow. You know you have problems when even the cheerleaders know you suck." ~ Pain in the Sash
by Leftcoast Hawk on Dec 15, 2009 4:37 PM CST up reply actions
Except if it's with your sister!
Wait a second, it’s only incest if you bang your sister. The rest of us are probably in the clear on that.
I’ve gotten far off track.
I got more rhymes than Wade Lookingbill's got dunks
What would Bill Clinton say?
With OT in college football now, we’ve got that going for us.
"Wow. You know you have problems when even the cheerleaders know you suck." ~ Pain in the Sash
by Leftcoast Hawk on Dec 15, 2009 8:14 PM CST up reply actions
Who wants Ohio State and Michigan to play twice a year?
heh
In the past 10 years, just four team owners have not paid a luxury tax and are not on pace to pay one this year: Donald Sterling, Jerry Reinsdorf, Chris Cohen (Golden State), Bob Johnson (Charlotte).
Two owners’ teams averaged an operating income of over +$10 million per year while their teams have lost over 60% of their games: Donald Sterling and Jerry Reinsdorf.
What about bringing a team up from FCS?
Is there any chance that one of the traditional FCS powerhouses (App St., UNI, Richmond, etc.) would be looking to jump up to Division 1?
Another potential: What about bringing Army or Navy into the mix?
"I am so proud to be your coach." -Paul Rhoads
I don't think any of those suits the BXI's academic needs and criteria
I got more rhymes than Wade Lookingbill's got dunks
Refer to the above comments on academics
Army or Navy are also like Notre Dame. There’s no way they’re moving from independent, for even more reasons than the Golden Domers can come up with.
/O'keefe'd
by Smokin Herb Grigsby on Dec 15, 2009 1:37 PM CST up reply actions
It needs to be high impact, so FCS and Army/Navy are non-starters
The new school needs to bring a whole lot more than what the average school would normally bring (whether it’s new markets or a nationwide fan base). Think of it in fuzzy math terms:
The Big Ten DOESN’T need 11 + 1 = 12. That’s just the status quo with an extra mouth to feed.
The Big Ten DEFINITELY doesn’t need 11 + 1 = 11.5. Adding the wrong school that’s just a taker of revenue as opposed to a provider is worthless.
The Big Ten will only expand if the new calculation is 11 + 1 = 13 or more. A new school would have to bring a whole lot more than just the ability to add a conference championship game.
11+1=13
Might be the best shorthanded description of what it would take for expansion to happen. I’m stealing it.
http://www.rivalryesq.com/
The quintessential Big Ten smoking room.
by Bama Hawkeye on Dec 15, 2009 2:04 PM CST up reply actions
The new school needs to bring a whole lot more than what the average school would normally bring (whether it’s new markets or a nationwide fan base).
The Big Ten wants another Penn State. So that leaves Notre Dame (maybe) and….Texas?
"Andrew Jones....SEND IT IN, BIG FELLA!" - Bill Raftery, 4/2/09
by ReadingRambler on Dec 15, 2009 2:16 PM CST up reply actions
I still think
they want to expand east. While there isn’t a lot back east in the way of football right now, it makes the most sense. Tons of Big Ten alums are back east, great recruits are east, NY is east, madison ave. is east. They are not going to go west and gobbling up Missouri does not offer much in the way of $$. I don’t see any of the SEC teams coming up either. I think this is a Syracuse moment. Syracuse is not ideal but it offers opportunity. A really outside the mainstream notion is Uconn. I don’t think Pitt is in the mix in any serious way and certainly do not think Rutgers is a good addition. BC is not ready for the Big Ten either.
They want ND and I think they have a good shot at them. If not, I think Syracuse.
"I think it's safe to say our concerns are many." -- Kirk Ferentz
And maybe Maryland
for the DC market.
http://www.rivalryesq.com/
The quintessential Big Ten smoking room.
by Bama Hawkeye on Dec 15, 2009 3:04 PM CST up reply actions
Again, a much amller market than people think from a media standpoint
2% of NY tristate is more than most of these considered markets. As of right now, only FiOS and Direct TV carry the Big Ten network. That leaves something like 80% in the dark in the NY area. Cablevision and Comcast don’t offer it (at least they didn’t when I researched this before the season).
"I think it's safe to say our concerns are many." -- Kirk Ferentz
My wildcard would be VA Tech
I know it makes no sense. But since we are playing a guessing game here…
"Wow. You know you have problems when even the cheerleaders know you suck." ~ Pain in the Sash
Keep this in mind
There is no way that the CIC allows a non-AAU school into the fold.
Here’s the list of member institutions, not in this list=not in the Big whatever it would be
by BHGPprovidesLaughs on Dec 15, 2009 5:04 PM CST up reply actions
You know who isn't on that list?
Notre Dame.
Just sayin’.
Before you respond, let me remind you: Brian Cook called me smug, which makes me the Obama of smugness. I'm basically Smugbama.
by Hawkeye State on Dec 16, 2009 9:18 AM CST up reply actions
Is there a basketball angle to any of this?
by YouCanPutYourEddsInIt on Dec 15, 2009 4:50 PM CST reply actions
Should there be?
As it appears basketball (at least men’s) is rapidly becoming a non-sport at Iowa, much like baseball?
"Wow. You know you have problems when even the cheerleaders know you suck." ~ Pain in the Sash
by Leftcoast Hawk on Dec 15, 2009 5:01 PM CST up reply actions
Yes
For instance, I doubt Pitt would be interested because a) they’re attempting to become more of a basketball program, and b) Big East basketball offers more for them.
"Andrew Jones....SEND IT IN, BIG FELLA!" - Bill Raftery, 4/2/09
by ReadingRambler on Dec 15, 2009 6:00 PM CST up reply actions
and is...
spanish for “a whale’s vagina”
by rinseandrepeat on Dec 15, 2009 10:20 PM CST up reply actions
Speaking of market shares and TV markets and such....
Anyone else concerned over the fact the mediacom won’t be carrying the two fox channels that cover a majority of Iowa come January 5th? I think i might have to go buy an antenna.
I'm going way out on a limb...
I actually think Cornell is a good fit, and I know athletically Cornell and the Ivy League are not friends right now. Remember, Rutgers used to be exactly what Cornell is now. In fact, Rutgers’ athletic program was in way worse shape than Cornell’s when they decided to go “big time” in athletics. Lot of road blocks athletically, none academically.
"An out of context quote to support my world view." -Some Dead Guy
PITT. The answer is PITT.
It is a geographical fit.
It is in the Big East, so we’re not poaching from a traditional conference.
They have a built-in rival.
They have the academics to pull it off, especially in the medical arena and, IIR, the business arena.
Also, you can NEVER put UM-OSU in different divisions. I’ve said it a million times and I’ll say it again: the end of season game is SACRED. They will NOT put in a system where they could possibly play twice in one season. End of story.
Finally, here are my rather surprisingly popular divisions from the other thread in case people have forgotten:
HEARTLAND division: Iowa, Minnesota, Wisconsin, PSU, Illinois, Pitt
GREAT LAKES division: UM, MSU, OSU, Purdue, IU, NW
Minny and UM can be cross-divisional rivals, as can Illinois and NW. As for the “Land Grant Trophy,” it’s about as precious as the Cy-Hawk trophy, and should be burned in a pyre. Not a rivalry, sorry, no need to worry about THAT one.
With the above, good balance between traditional FB powers of the past 20 years, pretty good balance between the B-ball schools, assuming that Wisky stays good and Indiana stays so-so for a while.
If it's not too much trouble, search your soul--and then ask yourself if maybe I might have a point.
So....
You’re putting PSU in the same division with Pitt and the four teams that are farthest away from them?
I got more rhymes than Wade Lookingbill's got dunks
by Adam Jacobi on Dec 16, 2009 12:02 AM CST up reply actions
Makes sense to me
On balance, since you play the 5 in your division and 3 from the other, it’s kind of a wash. We’re talking about maybe a couple hundred extra miles a year. It’s only an issue with football. No one would really care if the PSU played more games against non-divisional schools in other sports.
Look, once quantum teleportation is perfected...
It won’t matter WHERE the college campus is.
"Wow. You know you have problems when even the cheerleaders know you suck." ~ Pain in the Sash
by Leftcoast Hawk on Dec 16, 2009 6:56 PM CST up reply actions
And that...
…is why academics/research is important. Once a Big Ten university invents the teleportation device, there’s no way we’re sharing it with those SEC/Big12/ACC/Pac10/BigEast motherfuckers…
We’re keeping the damn technology exclusive to the Big Ten, to ensure Pam Ward can call more of our games….
pitt-psu
Don’t care how you slice it, I need to play PSU.
If Penn State played in the MAAC, and refused to play PITT for some lame reason, I would petition PITT to join the MAAC just to whoop ’em if we could.
Comments For This Post Are Closed
Secondary Sidebar
User Tools
Related FanPosts on Black Heart Gold Pants
FanPosts
Community blog posts and discussion.
Certain photos copyright © 2010 by Associated Press or Getty Images. Any commercial use or distribution without the express written consent of Associated Press and Getty Images is strictly prohibited.
