Big Ten Expansion Invites...
-
sjmvsfscs08
I grouped conference championship as regular season. My fault again.krambman wrote: They aren't. They are allowed 12 regular season game and one post season conference championship game. Unless you play at Hawaii, then you are allowed an additional regular season home game to help cover the travel cost.
No one from the Big Ten has officially said that. It's all speculation at this point.Sonofanump wrote: They will go to 14 teams (Mizz, Neb, Rut) without Notre Dame, IF ND applies/accepts they will seek another school (Pitt, UConn, Syr) and go to 16. -
Sonofanump
Officially nothing, but sources are floating that out there.sjmvsfscs08 wrote:
No one from the Big Ten has officially said that. It's all speculation at this point.Sonofanump wrote: They will go to 14 teams (Mizz, Neb, Rut) without Notre Dame, IF ND applies/accepts they will seek another school (Pitt, UConn, Syr) and go to 16. -
krambman
If the speculation is true that Notre Dame is the piece that will determine whether the conference expands to 14 or 16 teams makes me think that it's odd that they would only go after one Big East school right now. Notre Dame understood a while ago that they couldn't remain totally independent so they joined the Big East and only kept their football independence. I think that if two or three Big East schools were about to leave the conference and join the Big Ten, that would put a lot of pressure on Notre Dame to do the same. The Big East would have a hard time with only five D-1A football schools left.Sonofanump wrote:
Officially nothing, but sources are floating that out there.sjmvsfscs08 wrote:
No one from the Big Ten has officially said that. It's all speculation at this point.Sonofanump wrote: They will go to 14 teams (Mizz, Neb, Rut) without Notre Dame, IF ND applies/accepts they will seek another school (Pitt, UConn, Syr) and go to 16. -
Sonofanump
I believe it comes down to this. They want to go to 14 teams, but do not believe that ND wants in. They would go to 16 if ND ends up applying, but would not go to 16 without ND. So in order of preference:krambman wrote:
If the speculation is true that Notre Dame is the piece that will determine whether the conference expands to 14 or 16 teams makes me think that it's odd that they would only go after one Big East school right now. Notre Dame understood a while ago that they couldn't remain totally independent so they joined the Big East and only kept their football independence. I think that if two or three Big East schools were about to leave the conference and join the Big Ten, that would put a lot of pressure on Notre Dame to do the same. The Big East would have a hard time with only five D-1A football schools left.Sonofanump wrote:
Officially nothing, but sources are floating that out there.sjmvsfscs08 wrote:
No one from the Big Ten has officially said that. It's all speculation at this point.Sonofanump wrote: They will go to 14 teams (Mizz, Neb, Rut) without Notre Dame, IF ND applies/accepts they will seek another school (Pitt, UConn, Syr) and go to 16.
14 w/ ND
16 w/ ND
14 w/out ND
They may change their preference and only take Mizzo and go to 12. -
bigkahunaLet's pretend the Big 10 goes to 14
Nebraska, Missouri, Rutgers
Let's say they go to 16
Nebraska, Missouri, Notre Dame, Cincinnati, Rutgers
The 6 fotball schools left in the Big East would be
L'ville
USF
WVU
Pitt
UConn
Syracuse
Louisville, WVU and USF goes to SEC with GTech giving them 16
UConn, Syracuse, and Pitt go to the ACC to give them 14.
The 7 basketball schools left in the Big East can pull 5 from the A-10 or something and the Big East becomes a Basketball Conference only
Somebody should just hire me for re-alignment. -
The Equalizer
If Nebraska, and Missouri and Rutgers all agreed, and the B10 wanted 16, and ND said no, why couldn't they offer Pitt and say, a team like Uconn who has kickass basketball and a decent young football program? -
Sonofanump
Not gotta happen.bigkahuna wrote: Cincinnati. -
dtdtimbigkahuna wrote: If you look at other conferences that have divisions, there is always one dominating the other.
Big XII, when was the last time a North Team won the Conference?
SEC, Seriously besides Florida, who else is consistently able to compete with the West?
Basketball-The east ALWAYS dominates
ACC, I forget, but one of them is a lot better than the other.
I would say that what I proposed is far MORE balanced than existing conferences
Uh...I will give you the Big XII because it is very skewed toward the South when Colorado and Nebraska are out of power, but...
The East has won the SEC Championship 4 more times than the west. Both divisions have had 3 teams each win it.
The current tally of the ACC Championship game in football is Coastal 3, Atlantic 2. I would say that is fairly even. -
bigkahunaI will concede to that
-
krambman
Just because the conference champion comes from one side, doesn't necessarily mean that the conference is balanced. You could have the best team in the conference in one division, and the second, third, and fourth best teams in the other. That first division will produce the conference champion, but it still won't create balance. Now, I'm not saying that is the case with the SEC and ACC, just saying that looking at how many times each division has produced the conference champion doesn't come close to painting a true picture of balance.dtdtim wrote:bigkahuna wrote: If you look at other conferences that have divisions, there is always one dominating the other.
Big XII, when was the last time a North Team won the Conference?
SEC, Seriously besides Florida, who else is consistently able to compete with the West?
Basketball-The east ALWAYS dominates
ACC, I forget, but one of them is a lot better than the other.
I would say that what I proposed is far MORE balanced than existing conferences
Uh...I will give you the Big XII because it is very skewed toward the South when Colorado and Nebraska are out of power, but...
The East has won the SEC Championship 4 more times than the west. Both divisions have had 3 teams each win it.
The current tally of the ACC Championship game in football is Coastal 3, Atlantic 2. I would say that is fairly even.
And let's not forget that when the Big XII was formed that everyone assumed that the North would be dominant with Nebraska and Colorado, and for a while it was. Then the power shifted to the South with Texas and Oklahoma. Now with Nebraska and Missouri on the rise, it looks like we may be headed towards a more balanced conference again. In the 90's Michigan dominated the Big Ten and for the past decade it's been Ohio State. These things tend to go in cycles.
As far as the Big Ten goes, you have to divide the divisions by geography. You simply can't make arbitrary divisions based on perceived balance unless you realigned the divisions every 10 years or so. You would end up pissing off almost every school who isn't considered the #1 school in their division. And just because you do this to achieve balance on the football side of things doesn't mean you'll have balance come basketball season. So does that mean you have different divisions in that sport to create balance? What about women's basketball? Baseball? You'd have to have different divisions for every sport and that simply wouldn't work. You have to divide based on geography. -
bigkahunakrambman,
I agree with you on what you have stated. However, I think that IF you are going to divide divisions based on balancing them, it is more important to do so from a football standpoint. In every other sport, you play everyone at least once in the regular season and possibly in the post season conference tournament. It's not a big deal if OSU, Michigan, Penn St., Wisconsin, and Iowa don't play Indiana, Purdue, NW... every year. If they don't play each other, then are you really getting a true champion? Hopefully the Conference Championship Game takes care of this. -
krambman
The only way you end up with a true conference champion in college football is if you do what the Big East and Pac-10 do and have everyone play everyone. No matter how well balanced you make the divisions you'll still have years where the top two (if not top three) teams in the conference are in the same division (see: Big XII South 2008).bigkahuna wrote: krambman,
I agree with you on what you have stated. However, I think that IF you are going to divide divisions based on balancing them, it is more important to do so from a football standpoint. In every other sport, you play everyone at least once in the regular season and possibly in the post season conference tournament. It's not a big deal if OSU, Michigan, Penn St., Wisconsin, and Iowa don't play Indiana, Purdue, NW... every year. If they don't play each other, then are you really getting a true champion? Hopefully the Conference Championship Game takes care of this.
It would be so hard to balance the divisions anyway. Where do you rank Illinois who has been down recently but is a committed football school and has the potential to be a contender down the road. Where do you put Notre Dame and Michigan? We all assume they will again rise to national prominence, but there's no way to know if and when that will actually come to fruition. How about a school like Wisconsin who dominated the conference in the late 90's early 00's, but hasn't been at the top in a decade. What about a school like Nebraska who seems to be on the rise and has a great history. Is what we saw from them last season what Nebraska is going to be from now on, or will they be the Tom Osborn Nebraska of old? Missouri doesn't have a great football history, but has had some great seasons recently. Will that success continue or will they go back to being a middle-of-the-pack football program? No matter how well you try and balance the divisions now, the landscape could (and likely would) change in about 4 years and they would be unbalanced. It's easier and better to go with geography. Yes, try and choose the dividing line to make it as balanced as possible, but it has to be geography because no matter how hard you try, you'll never really have balance. -
Al Bundy
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Big_Ten_Conference_football_championskrambman wrote:
The only way you end up with a true conference champion in college football is if you do what the Big East and Pac-10 do and have everyone play everyone. No matter how well balanced you make the divisions you'll still have years where the top two (if not top three) teams in the conference are in the same division (see: Big XII South 2008).bigkahuna wrote: krambman,
I agree with you on what you have stated. However, I think that IF you are going to divide divisions based on balancing them, it is more important to do so from a football standpoint. In every other sport, you play everyone at least once in the regular season and possibly in the post season conference tournament. It's not a big deal if OSU, Michigan, Penn St., Wisconsin, and Iowa don't play Indiana, Purdue, NW... every year. If they don't play each other, then are you really getting a true champion? Hopefully the Conference Championship Game takes care of this.
It would be so hard to balance the divisions anyway. Where do you rank Illinois who has been down recently but is a committed football school and has the potential to be a contender down the road. Where do you put Notre Dame and Michigan? We all assume they will again rise to national prominence, but there's no way to know if and when that will actually come to fruition. How about a school like Wisconsin who dominated the conference in the late 90's early 00's, but hasn't been at the top in a decade. What about a school like Nebraska who seems to be on the rise and has a great history. Is what we saw from them last season what Nebraska is going to be from now on, or will they be the Tom Osborn Nebraska of old? Missouri doesn't have a great football history, but has had some great seasons recently. Will that success continue or will they go back to being a middle-of-the-pack football program? No matter how well you try and balance the divisions now, the landscape could (and likely would) change in about 4 years and they would be unbalanced. It's easier and better to go with geography. Yes, try and choose the dividing line to make it as balanced as possible, but it has to be geography because no matter how hard you try, you'll never really have balance.
I like the other sports too, but I know that football will determine the divisions. If you go by geography, the east will dominate (unless Nebraska becomes a national power again). The east's domination isn't just a 10 or 20 year thing, it has always been stronger. A lot of it has to do with the fact that the hs football is just better in the eastern states because they have bigger populations. Some of the schools in the west put together good stretches for 2 or 3 years at a time if they get a good class, but they have not been able to dominate for long stretches. -
sjmvsfscs08
No one should hire you for realignment.bigkahuna wrote: Let's pretend the Big 10 goes to 14
Nebraska, Missouri, Rutgers
Let's say they go to 16
Nebraska, Missouri, Notre Dame, Cincinnati, Rutgers
The 6 fotball schools left in the Big East would be
L'ville
USF
WVU
Pitt
UConn
Syracuse
Louisville, WVU and USF goes to SEC with GTech giving them 16
UConn, Syracuse, and Pitt go to the ACC to give them 14.
The 7 basketball schools left in the Big East can pull 5 from the A-10 or something and the Big East becomes a Basketball Conference only
Somebody should just hire me for re-alignment.
Cincinnati to the Big Ten will never ever happen. The academics aren't good enough, their programs are either not good enough (football) or down with little sign of improving (basketball). Oh, and Ohio State would block any attempt to have anyone cut in on their Ohio monopoly.
It's interesting to see if the domino effect goes, geographically speaking, clockwise or counterclockwise. I will go ahead and say the Big Ten advances to 14, with Missouri, Notre Dame, and Pittsburgh.
The Big XII takes Arkansas to replace Missouri, that is a 100% given. Whether they add two more (Texas Christian and....Utah?) would be interesting.
The SEC must now replace a team. Florida State, Clemson, Georgia Tech, Miami? Either way it's an ACC sacking. I think they'd take Florida State, Miami and Clemson in a move to fourteen.
Who does the ACC raid for schools? The Big East. Rest assured they would take West Virginia, Syracuse, Connecticut, and South Florida and go directly to fourteen teams.
The Big East is now effectively shattered. The remaining schools, Cincinnati, Louisville, Rutgers need five schools to remain a conference. Central Florida, Army, Navy, Temple, Memphis?
Most plausible scenarios end up with the Big East being relegated to sub-MWC levels. -
thesystem
You're definitely persistent with your belief that Notre Dame goes to the Big 10. I don't see it though. The recent big ten meetings had Delaney and others say Notre Dame wasn't coming. They've had their chance before, and have had what...20 years since then? All they would have had to do in that span is say 'we want in' and they would have put them in.sjmvsfscs08 wrote: I will go ahead and say the Big Ten advances to 14, with Missouri, Notre Dame, and Pittsburgh.
Pittsburgh is a team that offers little as far as revenue goes. They've had some good years in hoops recently, but the market share is already there with Penn State. The big money maker is football, and Pitt doesn't have the nationally recognized brand that Nebraska, Notre Dame, Texas, etc could offer.
The only thing Missouri brings to the table is the fact that they are an AAU member and could bring in a big market (KC/St. Louis). The bad part is their football team doesn't have the following and has trouble selling out their games even when they are having a good year.
I think if it comes down to choosing one Big XII team it would be Nebraska over Missouri. They are an AAU Member, have a huge following and would bring in viewers nationwide, have the longest sellout streak in the country...every home game since 1962. They are one of the top 5 programs of all time wins and have at least expressed that they would 'listen' if approached. -
rock_knutneI don't always agree with Pat Forde but this is spot on IMO:
http://sports.espn.go.com/espn/columns/story?columnist=forde_pat&id=5203980&sportCat=ncf -
krambman
I think that if you have Ohio State, Michigan, and Penn State in the East and Nebraska, Notre Dame, and Wisconsin in the West you could be okay. Obviously right now the East would be a lot better, but Nebraska and Notre Dame have the potential to become Ohio State and Michigan good again in the future (of course, I'm also assuming that Michigan will be a top team again as well). While Penn State is usually better than Wisconsin, Penn State has only won the conference three times in 16 years. The divisions likely wouldn't be very balanced at first, but let's also remember that we're probably a year away from anything official being announced and at least three years away from any new teams actually being in the conference. By then Nebraska and ND could be back to being top programs again. Also, like I said earlier, when the Big XII was formed the North was dominant with Nebraska and Colorado, but the South has been dominant recently with Texas and Oklahoma, so you just never know what will happen.0Al Bundy wrote:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Big_Ten_Conference_football_championskrambman wrote:
The only way you end up with a true conference champion in college football is if you do what the Big East and Pac-10 do and have everyone play everyone. No matter how well balanced you make the divisions you'll still have years where the top two (if not top three) teams in the conference are in the same division (see: Big XII South 2008).bigkahuna wrote: krambman,
I agree with you on what you have stated. However, I think that IF you are going to divide divisions based on balancing them, it is more important to do so from a football standpoint. In every other sport, you play everyone at least once in the regular season and possibly in the post season conference tournament. It's not a big deal if OSU, Michigan, Penn St., Wisconsin, and Iowa don't play Indiana, Purdue, NW... every year. If they don't play each other, then are you really getting a true champion? Hopefully the Conference Championship Game takes care of this.
It would be so hard to balance the divisions anyway. Where do you rank Illinois who has been down recently but is a committed football school and has the potential to be a contender down the road. Where do you put Notre Dame and Michigan? We all assume they will again rise to national prominence, but there's no way to know if and when that will actually come to fruition. How about a school like Wisconsin who dominated the conference in the late 90's early 00's, but hasn't been at the top in a decade. What about a school like Nebraska who seems to be on the rise and has a great history. Is what we saw from them last season what Nebraska is going to be from now on, or will they be the Tom Osborn Nebraska of old? Missouri doesn't have a great football history, but has had some great seasons recently. Will that success continue or will they go back to being a middle-of-the-pack football program? No matter how well you try and balance the divisions now, the landscape could (and likely would) change in about 4 years and they would be unbalanced. It's easier and better to go with geography. Yes, try and choose the dividing line to make it as balanced as possible, but it has to be geography because no matter how hard you try, you'll never really have balance.
I like the other sports too, but I know that football will determine the divisions. If you go by geography, the east will dominate (unless Nebraska becomes a national power again). The east's domination isn't just a 10 or 20 year thing, it has always been stronger. A lot of it has to do with the fact that the hs football is just better in the eastern states because they have bigger populations. Some of the schools in the west put together good stretches for 2 or 3 years at a time if they get a good class, but they have not been able to dominate for long stretches. -
Al Bundy
Depending upon which teams are added, ND could be in the eastern half of the conference. If you add, ND, Missouri, and Nebraska. ND would be in the east along with PSU, OSU, Mich, Mich St, Indiana and Purdue. The West would be Illinois, Northwestern, Nebraska, Missouri, Minnesota, Wisconsin, and Iowa.krambman wrote:
I think that if you have Ohio State, Michigan, and Penn State in the East and Nebraska, Notre Dame, and Wisconsin in the West you could be okay. Obviously right now the East would be a lot better, but Nebraska and Notre Dame have the potential to become Ohio State and Michigan good again in the future (of course, I'm also assuming that Michigan will be a top team again as well). While Penn State is usually better than Wisconsin, Penn State has only won the conference three times in 16 years. The divisions likely wouldn't be very balanced at first, but let's also remember that we're probably a year away from anything official being announced and at least three years away from any new teams actually being in the conference. By then Nebraska and ND could be back to being top programs again. Also, like I said earlier, when the Big XII was formed the North was dominant with Nebraska and Colorado, but the South has been dominant recently with Texas and Oklahoma, so you just never know what will happen.0Al Bundy wrote:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Big_Ten_Conference_football_championskrambman wrote:
The only way you end up with a true conference champion in college football is if you do what the Big East and Pac-10 do and have everyone play everyone. No matter how well balanced you make the divisions you'll still have years where the top two (if not top three) teams in the conference are in the same division (see: Big XII South 2008).bigkahuna wrote: krambman,
I agree with you on what you have stated. However, I think that IF you are going to divide divisions based on balancing them, it is more important to do so from a football standpoint. In every other sport, you play everyone at least once in the regular season and possibly in the post season conference tournament. It's not a big deal if OSU, Michigan, Penn St., Wisconsin, and Iowa don't play Indiana, Purdue, NW... every year. If they don't play each other, then are you really getting a true champion? Hopefully the Conference Championship Game takes care of this.
It would be so hard to balance the divisions anyway. Where do you rank Illinois who has been down recently but is a committed football school and has the potential to be a contender down the road. Where do you put Notre Dame and Michigan? We all assume they will again rise to national prominence, but there's no way to know if and when that will actually come to fruition. How about a school like Wisconsin who dominated the conference in the late 90's early 00's, but hasn't been at the top in a decade. What about a school like Nebraska who seems to be on the rise and has a great history. Is what we saw from them last season what Nebraska is going to be from now on, or will they be the Tom Osborn Nebraska of old? Missouri doesn't have a great football history, but has had some great seasons recently. Will that success continue or will they go back to being a middle-of-the-pack football program? No matter how well you try and balance the divisions now, the landscape could (and likely would) change in about 4 years and they would be unbalanced. It's easier and better to go with geography. Yes, try and choose the dividing line to make it as balanced as possible, but it has to be geography because no matter how hard you try, you'll never really have balance.
I like the other sports too, but I know that football will determine the divisions. If you go by geography, the east will dominate (unless Nebraska becomes a national power again). The east's domination isn't just a 10 or 20 year thing, it has always been stronger. A lot of it has to do with the fact that the hs football is just better in the eastern states because they have bigger populations. Some of the schools in the west put together good stretches for 2 or 3 years at a time if they get a good class, but they have not been able to dominate for long stretches. -
bigkahuna
I agree, this is a really good article. Also, I really don't want a 14/16 team league...it's just asinine.rock_knutne wrote: I don't always agree with Pat Forde but this is spot on IMO:
http://sports.espn.go.com/espn/columns/story?columnist=forde_pat&id=5203980&sportCat=ncf -
sjmvsfscs08I agree that 16 is just ridiculous. 12 is optimal, 14 is barely acceptable. The NCAA should limit conference sizes to 14, and do it soon.
-
sjmvsfscs08
Well I think it's definitely a "does Notre Dame want in?" issue, as opposed to a "does the Big Ten want Notre Dame issue?" I think Notre Dame would ask that they are able to schedule Michigan, Michigan State, and Purdue every year and be able to play Southern Cal the last game of the season every other year. That and a stipulation that Notre Dame must be shown on the Big Ten Network if they aren't on ABC/ESPN/ESPN2. Notre Dame's AD has said there are scenarios that force Notre Dame's hand. I believe the Big Ten is trying to figure out just what scenario that is.thesystem wrote: You're definitely persistent with your belief that Notre Dame goes to the Big 10. I don't see it though. The recent big ten meetings had Delaney and others say Notre Dame wasn't coming. They've had their chance before, and have had what...20 years since then? All they would have had to do in that span is say 'we want in' and they would have put them in.
Certainly Pittsburgh's football program can't be compared to those of Nebraska, Notre Dame, etc. But that isn't my argument. It's basically a "Rutgers or Pittsburgh" argument at this point. Pittsburgh brings in an elite basketball program and instantly helps the conference via adding an instant national contender. Their football program has been regionally competent for decades, and the view now is that Wannstedt is ready to take them to the next level. Either way, they are one hundred times the program Rutgers is. I know everyone wants Rutgers for the addition of New York, but I still continue to believe that Notre Dame will add that until I am proved incorrect. I may indeed be wrong, but I think people are underestimating the millions of Notre Dame fans an "subway alumni" that have watched every Notre Dame game for nearly twenty years on television. They will demand that their team be made available to them, even if it's via the Big Ten Network.thesystem wrote: Pittsburgh is a team that offers little as far as revenue goes. They've had some good years in hoops recently, but the market share is already there with Penn State. The big money maker is football, and Pitt doesn't have the nationally recognized brand that Nebraska, Notre Dame, Texas, etc could offer.
Their television additions cannot be underestimated; they are huge cities. Football wise, Gary Pinkel has built himself a solid program there. He's a friend of a friend, so I'm biased. But he's done fairly well at both Toledo and Missouri. I think Missouri as a whole would benefit from a move to the Big Ten. I'd punch them in as a Northwestern of the 1990s. I really think there's a ton of potential in Missouri, as so much of the talent is picked by the other Big XII teams. If you weren't constantly facing that uphill battle against the likes of Oklahoma, your recruiting would improve and things would begin to prosper in my opinion.thesystem wrote: The only thing Missouri brings to the table is the fact that they are an AAU member and could bring in a big market (KC/St. Louis). The bad part is their football team doesn't have the following and has trouble selling out their games even when they are having a good year.