The Big 16?

• mucalum49

  

  Tom Dienhart has tweeted that the Big Ten expansion buzz has the conference adding Mizzou, Nebraska, Pitt, Rutgers and Syracuse.
  
  The conference would be divided into 4 divisions of 4.
  
  He has alignments of:
  
  'Cuse, Pitt, Rutgers, and Penn State
  Michigan, Wisconsin, Michigan State and Minnesota
  Ohio State, Purdue, Indiana, Illinois/Northwestern
  Mizzou, Nebraska, Iowa, and Illinois/Northwestern.
  
  
  Thoughts??
• SportsAndLady

  

  mucalum49 wrote:Thoughts??

  My thoughts are that I have heard enough talks about expansion, that I simply do not care about it until its actually 100% signed sealed and delivered.
• thedynasty1998

  

  I like OSU's chances in their division.
• j_crazy

  

  OSU's division = weak sauce.
  
  the other 3 are pretty good.
  
  I too will only be excited when they actually add someone. Until then, we are just playing fantasy with these divisions.
• gibby08

  

  Of course Ohio State would get the easiest spot.
• gibby08

  

  The Big East would cease to exist without Pitt, Syracuse
• goosebumps

  

  There's always talk about how "weak" the big east is. If the big ten really wanted to "improve" itself why would they add:
  
  One team (Pitt) who has only won one big east title (shared with 3 other teams)
  Rutgers who has never won a big east title
  Syracuse who hasn't won a big east title in over a decade
  
  WVU has been much better in the long run and have a great following of fans, if the Big Ten cared one bit about quality and not money then WVU would be at the top of the expansion list.
  
  This is all about money and won't improve the quality of Big Ten football one bit... if anything it will go down. Teams in the conference won't even play almost half of the rest of the conference. 16 teams is just too many in Football. It works in basketball, but won't work very well for football.
• vball10set

  as long as we continue to play tsun every year,I don't care how many teams are in the conferenece,or how it's aligned
• sportchampps

  Adding these teams isnt all about football
• Cleveland Buck

  

  The Big Ten must believe that Syracuse basketball combined with the handful of people who follow Rutgers sports will get the BTN on basic cable in NYC. I don't like adding all of these bottomfeeders in football though. Nebraska would be a nice get though, as long as they can get back to close to what they used to be. It is all about money though.
• Al Bundy

  mucalum49 wrote: Tom Dienhart has tweeted that the Big Ten expansion buzz has the conference adding Mizzou, Nebraska, Pitt, Rutgers and Syracuse.
  
  The conference would be divided into 4 divisions of 4.
  
  He has alignments of:
  
  'Cuse, Pitt, Rutgers, and Penn State
  Michigan, Wisconsin, Michigan State and Minnesota
  Ohio State, Purdue, Indiana, Illinois/Northwestern
  Mizzou, Nebraska, Iowa, and Illinois/Northwestern.
  
  
  Thoughts??

  I understand that you need 2 divisions to set up a championship game, but what is the purpose of 4 divisions?
• Cleveland Buck

  

  I would guess to have a 4 team conference tournament.
• jmog

  Exactly, Syracuse and Rutgers is all about TV markets, I agree with that.
• Al Bundy

  Cleveland Buck wrote: I would guess to have a 4 team conference tournament.

  Can that be done under current NCAA rules?
• charliehustle14

  gibby08 wrote: Of course I'm a stupid cocksucker

• Big Gain

  Four Four school Divisions???? RIDICULOUS!!
• sleeper

  

  Ohio State will still win the Big Ten, don't care how many teams, and that's all that matters to me.
• skank

  

  gibby08 wrote: The Big East would cease to exist without Pitt, Syracuse

  714 posts, and I'm still waiting for an intelligent one from you.
• sjmvsfscs08

  This is fucking terrible. It's time for the NCAA to restrict conference sizes! Sixteen teams?! That's just stupid, you'd play like half the conference in any given year. Twelve or fourteen should be the limit!
• slingshot4ever

  sjmvsfscs08 wrote: This is fucking terrible. It's time for the NCAA to restrict conference sizes! Sixteen teams?! That's just stupid, you'd play like half the conference in any given year. Twelve or fourteen should be the limit!

  The Big East has 12 teams for the basketball conference. I never see you or anyone else complain about that.
• TBradyfan

  goosebumps wrote: There's always talk about how "weak" the big east is. If the big ten really wanted to "improve" itself why would they add:
  
  One team (Pitt) who has only won one big east title (shared with 3 other teams)
  Rutgers who has never won a big east title
  Syracuse who hasn't won a big east title in over a decade
  
  WVU has been much better in the long run and have a great following of fans, if the Big Ten cared one bit about quality and not money then WVU would be at the top of the expansion list.
  
  This is all about money and won't improve the quality of Big Ten football one bit... if anything it will go down. Teams in the conference won't even play almost half of the rest of the conference. 16 teams is just too many in Football. It works in basketball, but won't work very well for football.

  WVU can't join the Big Ten. Don't you think RR has suffered enough. Now he'll get his tail kick by his old school, and the BB team would get ran out of the gym too. Many have enjoyed the Michigan suffering but WVU joining the Big Ten would be just down right cruel.
• Mulva

  

  slingshot4ever wrote:
  The Big East has 12 teams for the basketball conference. I never see you or anyone else complain about that.

  I assume you meant 16 teams in basketball.
  
  But there are 18 conference games in basketball, and 8 in football. Playing everyone once and multiple teams twice vs. playing 1/2 the teams once and 1/2 not at all isn't really comparable.
• OhioStatePride2003

  Mulva wrote:

  slingshot4ever wrote:
  The Big East has 12 teams for the basketball conference. I never see you or anyone else complain about that.

  I assume you meant 16 teams in basketball.
  
  But there are 18 conference games in basketball, and 8 in football. Playing everyone once and multiple teams twice vs. playing 1/2 the teams once and 1/2 not at all isn't really comparable.

  Exactly. Personally, I don't see the point in playing some of your conference one year and some the next. I'd rather see teams play every team in the conference, then you have a true conference champion. Not any of this, "You wouldn't have won the conference if you would've played so and so".
• Pick6

  

  ^thats why you have a conference championship game. example: florida and bama last year.
• goosebumps

  

  Pick6 wrote: ^thats why you have a conference championship game. example: florida and bama last year.

  The Big 12 has a conference championship game and look at what happened the year before last.... still not a "true" champion.