Jim Delany poo-poos Big Ten expansion in football

[Kodos]

Come on. Let's get the Big Ten to twelve by adding Notre Dame, and let's get a college football playoff. A'ight?

hxxp://sports.espn.go.com/ncf/news/story?id=4141080&campaign=rss&source=NCFHeadlines

Paterno's expansion plea met with no-go

By Adam Rittenberg, ESPN.com

The Big Ten has no immediate plans to expand, and it would take more than a desire for a football championship game and a longer regular season for the league to add a 12th member, commissioner Jim Delany said.

Penn State coach Joe Paterno last week called on the Big Ten to expand, saying the conference goes "into hiding for six weeks" while other leagues hold championship games and play into the first week of December.

This fall, nine of 11 Big Ten teams will finish the regular season on Nov. 21, two weeks before teams from the other five BCS conferences. Come the 2010 season, the Big Ten adds a permanent bye week that will extend the regular season by one week.

Paterno expressed concern that the Big Ten disappears from college football's radar, which hurts league members vying for a spot in the national championship game. The Big Ten owns a six-game losing streak in BCS bowl games and hasn't won the Rose Bowl since 2000.

"Everybody else is playing playoffs on television," Paterno said. "You never see a Big Ten team mentioned, so I think that's a handicap."

Delany responded to Paterno's comments Monday, saying that while a league championship game has its benefits, particularly from a marketing perspective, expansion requires much more.

"It's not the reason you would expand," Delany told ESPN.com. He also said Paterno isn't the only Big Ten coach who has stumped for expansion in recent years.

"The issue has come up with our football coaches a couple times -- with the extra week and if we did expand, would we be more competitive?" Delany said. "I would say in some years they might be right. But has it enhanced the competitiveness of the ACC in football? Has it enhanced the competitiveness of the WAC? I don't know.

"Just because you have a championship doesn't make you more competitive. It's about coaching the players. The SEC game has been a marketing bonanza. I wouldn't discount that. But others have struggled with it."

Delany admits the lack of a championship game puts the Big Ten at a marketing disadvantage, which also was the case before the Big Ten added league tournaments in basketball in 1995 (women's) and 1998 (men's). Although Delany pushed for the basketball tournaments, he pointed out that the events haven't always translated to more success for its members in the NCAA tournament.

"I still think the tournament's a good thing, but it wouldn't be the reason why you'd expand a conference, to have a men's basketball tournament," he said. "It's too big a question."

The 82-year-old Paterno said the Big Ten remains a league dominated by a select few who "snicker" whenever he brings up the prospect of expansion. His claim surprised Delany, who recently spent several hours with Paterno in New York. The expansion issue never came up during their discussions.

"Coach Paterno ... is as important a coach, leader, teacher as we've ever had in college sports," Delany said. "So what he says gets disproportionate weight, and properly so. Whether it's in a coaches' meeting, a meeting of athletic directors or university presidents, his work and recommendation still means a lot. Coach Paterno has a lot of experience in this area. He's played around with conference configurations. He knows it's not easy, and he knows what he says matters.

"But the point of it is, [expansion is] a very big issue, it's a fundamental issue and it's a back-burner issue right now."

Paterno mentioned Syracuse, Rutgers and Pittsburgh as possible 12th members for the Big Ten. Delany declined to discuss specific teams from other conferences but said a school would need to fit the Big Ten, not just from a marketing perspective, but with its academic vision, athletic success and commitment, among other factors.

And since the Big Ten's second attempt to add Notre Dame fizzled in 1999, no other school has surfaced as a viable candidate for expansion.

"There's not an obvious move," Delany said. "There might be to some coaches, including Coach Paterno, but it's not as obvious to the university presidents and to the athletic directors.

"There are a lot [of schools] that could take a lot away, but there aren't a lot that could bring so much to make the choice an easy one. You have to have a lot to make something go like this, and it's broader than really a championship game or a basketball tournament."

[Matthean]

They already did a previous article about this with Paterno. He basically said there needs to be 2-3 people in power that eventually step down for there to be a chance that they expand to 12, and he wishes he was about 20 years younger because he would put up a bigger fight for it, but as it stands now he'll be done with coaching by the time it happens.

In all honesty, I'm not so sure adding a 12th team and having a championship game is as much of a fix for the Big Ten as people make it out to be. Should they do it? Well, yeah.

[Passacaglia]

Should they do it? Well, yeah.

I dunno. What are the Big Ten's goals, anyway?

[Kodos]

To me, it seems like it could be a shot in the arm for Big Ten football. At the very least, having a championship game would add a certain amount of entertainment value.

[dacman]

Part of the "goes into hiding" problem will be somewhat aleviated next year when the conference schedule goes a week later into the year with most teams getting a bye at some point.

Considering how often they get 2 teams into the BCS, arguably undeservingly, I wouldn't change a thing.

[Dr. Sak]

If they don't get a 12th...I wish they would take away an OOC game and make each team play 9 conference games.

[dacman]

If they don't get a 12th...I wish they would take away an OOC game and make each team play 9 conference games.

[snarky cynic]
OK, well when you come up with a schedule that has an 11-team conference playing 9 games each then they'll do that
[/snarky cynic]

;)

[gstelmack]

Well, when an 11-team conference calls itself the Big Ten, what do we expect?

[panerd]

I love it when schools act like the conferences exist for any other reason than sports. They always talk about academic standards etc. In all of my time at Mizzou I don't remember any dealings with Kansas or Colorado or Oklahoma in anything except sports. Am I wrong on this?

[Dr. Sak]

[snarky cynic]
OK, well when you come up with a schedule that has an 11-team conference playing 9 games each then they'll do that
[/snarky cynic]

;)

The Pac 10 plays 9 conference games. I just hate that some years teams dont play both Ohio State and Michigan...shouldn't happen. This way you could play all the teams but one...and rotate.

[Kodos]

I love it when schools act like the conferences exist for any other reason than sports. They always talk about academic standards etc. In all of my time at Mizzou I don't remember any dealings with Kansas or Colorado or Oklahoma in anything except sports. Am I wrong on this?

Maybe they have competing math teams or something. :)

[RendeR]

"The issue has come up with our football coaches a couple times -- with the extra week and if we did expand, would we be more competitive?" Delany said. "I would say in some years they might be right. But has it enhanced the competitiveness of the ACC in football? Has it enhanced the competitiveness of the WAC? I don't know.


The fact that his argument is based on comparing the BIG 10 to the WAC and ACC conferences should be grounds for his removal from his job. He's obviously a fucking moron.

[dawgfan]

The problem with expansion is finding the right fit. Everyone says "Notre Dame" for the Big-10, and while that would make a lot of sense from the perspective of the Big-10, does it really benefit Notre Dame? And if Notre Dame says "no", who else fits that is likely to say "yes"?

It's easy to look at things from strictly an on-field football perspective, but when you account for the many other factors involved with the decision, it becomes a lot harder to work out.

[Dr. Sak]

Why would Notre Dame want to join the Big Ten? They have their own TV deal for football...steal bowls from the Big East...and play every other sport in the Big East. They are having their cake and eating it too.

[dacman]

The Pac 10 plays 9 conference games. I just hate that some years teams dont play both Ohio State and Michigan...shouldn't happen. This way you could play all the teams but one...and rotate.

You missed the point -- I'll be more direct.

The Pac-10 has 10 teams. 10 teams * 9 conference games / 2 teams per game = 45 conference games total

Big (11) Ten would be 11 teams * 9 conference games / 2 teams per game = 49.5 conference games total. Can't have 1/2 a game -- someone would have to play 8 or 10 games. In other words, it simply doesn't work.

The Michigan/Ohio State thing has been mitigated somewhat. They adjusted the schedules so that no one ever missed both again. That might still be a year or two away.

[molson]

You missed the point -- I'll be more direct.

The Pac-10 has 10 teams. 10 teams * 9 conference games / 2 teams per game = 45 conference games total

Big (11) Ten would be 11 teams * 9 conference games / 2 teams per game = 49.5 conference games total. Can't have 1/2 a game -- someone would have to play 8 or 10 games. In other words, it simply doesn't work.

The Michigan/Ohio State thing has been mitigated somewhat. They adjusted the schedules so that no one ever missed both again. That might still be a year or two away.

nerd

[Dr. Sak]

You missed the point -- I'll be more direct.

The Pac-10 has 10 teams. 10 teams * 9 conference games / 2 teams per game = 45 conference games total

Big (11) Ten would be 11 teams * 9 conference games / 2 teams per game = 49.5 conference games total. Can't have 1/2 a game -- someone would have to play 8 or 10 games. In other words, it simply doesn't work.

The Michigan/Ohio State thing has been mitigated somewhat. They adjusted the schedules so that no one ever missed both again. That might still be a year or two away.

So you are saying there is no way that 5 conference games could go on each week and the team that doesn't have a conference game that week either have a bye week or an OOC game?

[QuikSand]

I'm not sure that this has jbmagic blackjack potential, but I'll be watching just in case.

[digamma]

I'm not sure that this has jbmagic blackjack potential, but I'll be watching just in case.

This won't have the same flair the +5, +5, +5, oh fuck demonstration, but I'll give it a shot.

Team: Off Week
Penn State: 1
Iowa: 2
Indiana: 3
Minnesota: 4
Michigan: 5
Illinois: 6
Purdue: 7
Northwestern: 8
Michigan State: 9
Ohio State: 10
Wisconsin: OH FUCK

[panerd]

This won't have the same flair the +5, +5, +5, oh fuck demonstration, but I'll give it a shot.

Team: Off Week
Penn State: 1
Iowa: 2
Indiana: 3
Minnesota: 4
Michigan: 5
Illinois: 6
Purdue: 7
Northwestern: 8
Michigan State: 9
Ohio State: 10
Wisconsin: OH FUCK

Hope this is a joke. There are like 14-15 weeks in a college football season, you understand this correct?

[panerd]

Here is a simple demonstration for a three team league...

A vs B
C vs some outside team

A vs C
B vs some outside team

B vs C
A vs some outside team

[Passacaglia]

Here is a simple demonstration for a three team league...

A vs B
C vs some outside team

A vs C
B vs some outside team

B vs C
A vs some outside team

That's 3 teams playing 2 in-conference games. The issue here is that you can't have an odd number of teams play an odd number of in-conference games.

[panerd]

That's 3 teams playing 2 in-conference games. The issue here is that you can't have an odd number of teams play an odd number of in-conference games.

Why the hell would 11 teams play 9 games like he says? They would obviously play 10. His theory is wrong no matter what but even his odd completely wrong mathematical analysis doesn't have the correct set-up.

[Passacaglia]

Why the hell would 11 teams play 9 games like he says? They would obviously play 10. His theory is wrong no matter what but even his odd completely wrong mathematical analysis doesn't have the correct set-up.

Because that's what Post #6 -- the thing we are talking about -- suggests?

[panerd]

Because that's what Post #6 -- the thing we are talking about -- suggests?

Okay. But it seems like diagamma's post doesn't explain what you guys are saying then.

[Passacaglia]

Okay. But it seems like diagamma's post doesn't explain what you guys are saying then.

Yeah, he's just trying to be cute. I think dacman's post does a very good job, though.

[Solecismic]

Why not play 10 conference games each season?

Michigan is playing Delaware State this season, and "hopes" to grab UMass for next season.

Seems like an opportunity - schedule one top-notch opponent and one local mid-major. The fans are happy, the players are getting more time against better competition.

I really thought the Big Ten would have added a 12th team by now, though. Paterno is probably thinking Pittsburgh or Syracuse. Quality academic institutions, and more natural rivals.

I wonder if Penn State was promised a 12th team when it agreed to join.

The way the BCS works, the Big Ten needs a championship game. Unfortunately, how to do that without screwing up the Michigan/Ohio State season-ender is very difficult.

[Passacaglia]

That said, there's a point left unsaid in digamma's post. Sure, there's 14-15 weeks in the college football season, so you can spread it out if you want, but how are you going to do it? Keep in mind that each week needs to have an odd number of teams not playing, and every team needs to have the same number of weeks off.

[Passacaglia]

Why not play 10 conference games each season?

Michigan is playing Delaware State this season, and "hopes" to grab UMass for next season.

Seems like an opportunity - schedule one top-notch opponent and one local mid-major. The fans are happy, the players are getting more time against better competition.

I really thought the Big Ten would have added a 12th team by now, though. Paterno is probably thinking Pittsburgh or Syracuse. Quality academic institutions, and more natural rivals.

I wonder if Penn State was promised a 12th team when it agreed to join.

The way the BCS works, the Big Ten needs a championship game. Unfortunately, how to do that without screwing up the Michigan/Ohio State season-ender is very difficult.

So would Michigan play 7 home games when they play ND at home, and only 6 when they play in South Bend? I don't know how well that's going to go over, even if it means they don't have crap games no one wants to go to.

How would a championship game help the Big Ten? It seems like in the current incarnation of the Big Ten, it would just give Ohio State another chance to lose out on the national title game.

[panerd]

Why not play 10 conference games each season?

Michigan is playing Delaware State this season, and "hopes" to grab UMass for next season.

Seems like an opportunity - schedule one top-notch opponent and one local mid-major. The fans are happy, the players are getting more time against better competition.

I really thought the Big Ten would have added a 12th team by now, though. Paterno is probably thinking Pittsburgh or Syracuse. Quality academic institutions, and more natural rivals.

I wonder if Penn State was promised a 12th team when it agreed to join.

The way the BCS works, the Big Ten needs a championship game. Unfortunately, how to do that without screwing up the Michigan/Ohio State season-ender is very difficult.

But what Paterno is saying to add a 12th team so there are divisions. Making the big 10 like the big 12 or SEC where you play your division every year but rotate vs the other division. Which creates years like KU had two years ago where the only quality conference opponents they played were and Mizzou (who they lost too) and they were that close to being in the national title game. This would make OSU and Michigan unbalance the schedule even more (which I can only assume would place the two in the same division) Which brings up an interesting question, how would you split the divisions. They could never go geographic could they? Look at the East football potential.

WEST
WISC
ILL
IU
IOWA
PURDUE
MINN

EAST
UM
MSU
OSU
NWSTRN
PURDUE
New Team

[Passacaglia]

I think you want Penn State in the East, not Purdue.

It's always been Notre Dame or no one for the Big Ten -
Michigan State Spartans Sports: News, Blogs, Photos, Audio, Schedule & Stats - MLive.com (http://www.mlive.com/spartans/index.ssf/2009/05/its_always_been_notre_dame_or.html)

I won't post the whole text of that article, just the relevant part:

My plan has long been to divide the teams along geographical lines.

The Duffy-Bo Division would consist of: Michigan, Michigan State, Penn State, Minnesota, Wisconsin and Northwestern.

The Knute-Woody Division would be made up of: Ohio State, Notre Dame, Indiana, Purdue, Iowa and Illinois.

I guess he's going for north-south, but that doesn't seem very natural.

[tarcone]

But what Paterno is saying to add a 12th team so there are divisions. Making the big 10 like the big 12 or SEC where you play your division every year but rotate vs the other division. Which creates years like KU had two years ago where the only quality conference opponents they played were and Mizzou (who they lost too) and they were that close to being in the national title game. This would make OSU and Michigan unbalance the schedule even more (which I can only assume would place the two in the same division) Which brings up an interesting question, how would you split the divisions. They could never go geographic could they? Look at the East football potential.

WEST
WISC
ILL
IU
IOWA
PURDUE
MINN

EAST
UM
MSU
OSU
NWSTRN
PURDUE
New Team

Poor Purdue :p

[Passacaglia]

If he is trying to due north-south, he'd have to switch Penn State and Iowa. Also, those are really stupid division names. Basically, this looks more like "geographical lines that make sure Michigan and Ohio State aren't in the same division" more than anything else.

[kingnebwsu]

Big Ten expansion in football is really interesting to me. I'm a huge OSU fan, so to me (and many other arrogant/over-confident OSU/Michigan fans), I think the Big Ten championship should come down to the OSU/Michigan game every year. As an Ohio State fan, I think that's how it should be. I bet most OSU/Michigan fans feel the same way. I know there are many other solid programs in the conference, but meh.

If the conference was split into two divisions and OSU played Michigan in the last week of the regular season...and then again 1 or 2 weeks later in the conference championship game, then that would suck. Realistically/based on history, this would happen at least once every three or four years. Based on this alone, I think I am currently against expansion. Though I understand/have accepted the fact that the Big Ten isn't consistently relevant to the national championship picture. OSU may have been there a few times recently, but nobody respects them. I wish the team would have come in to the Florida game ready to play...then I think a lot of that disrespect wouldn't be there.

At least OSU has scheduled USC in back to back years to "unjustly" avoid getting into the championship game.

[Solecismic]

I think Michigan and Ohio state would rather secede from the Big Ten than give up The Game.

If divisions were created, they would have to be in the same division, and thus never meet for the conference title.

It would a bit odd if they did what the ACC does with Florida State and Miami - who play each year but can also play in the conference championship. Because that game must be the final one of the regular season.

[Wolfpack]

I think Michigan and Ohio state would rather secede from the Big Ten than give up The Game.

If divisions were created, they would have to be in the same division, and thus never meet for the conference title.

It would a bit odd if they did what the ACC does with Florida State and Miami - who play each year but can also play in the conference championship. Because that game must be the final one of the regular season.

Well, in Miami and FSU's case, it was because Miami and FSU wanted it that way. The expectations were that FSU and Miami would be typically challenging for the ACC title every year and neither team wanted a loss to the other do heavy damage to their conference and national title aspirations. They still wanted the rivalry game, but they didn't want the loss costing a BCS berth since if they were in the same division, it would effectively have eliminated the loser, whereas if they were in separate divisions, the loser still had a chance by way of the ACC title game of making it back into the BCS. So the ACC actually had to work with those wishes, thus the lack of geographic continuity to the divisions. At least they did a pretty good job of structuring the divisions and the fixed cross-over games to preserve the best rivalry matchups in the league.

Of course, in hindsight, kowtowing to FSU and Miami led to some lamentable decisions: that FSU and Miami play Labor Day weekend to start the year, and none of those games were Instant Classics (they were generally panned as lousy games, even) and, worse yet, the ACC putting the title game in Jacksonville and then (when Jax had horrid attendance figures) Tampa. Only the FSU-VT game in the first year ever amounted to anything attendance-wise and with the ACC being probably the most parity-driven league in the BCS, getting FSU or Miami into the championship game is not something that may happen on an annual basis. I expect that the ACC championship game will end up either as a permanent game in Charlotte or a split between Charlotte and a Florida location or go to campus sites (i.e. better team's home field) after the current deal runs out in 2011. It won't permanently be in Florida after what's happened in the first few years.

[Kodos]

I suppose Michigan-OSU wouldn't agree to moving their annual game up to midseason?

[Matthean]

I suppose Michigan-OSU wouldn't agree to moving their annual game up to midseason?

(checks temperature in Hell)

[Solecismic]

I suppose Michigan-OSU wouldn't agree to moving their annual game up to midseason?

It's been the week before Thanksgiving my entire life.

I think they'd be in the same division if the conference goes to a championship game. It's more a natural to divide East and West from a travel perspective.

As far as invitations, It's snobby, but the Big Ten is obsessive about academics. The university presidents would never accept a school without an international reputation.

From the Academic Ranking of World Universities, 2008:

Wisconsin 17, Michigan 21, Illinois 26, Minnesota 28, Northwestern 30, Penn State 42, Ohio State 62, Purdue 65, Michigan State 83, Indiana 92, Iowa 101-150 (97 in 2007).

Only the Ivy League is as particular (and takes it to another level). And these are world rankings. So I think a school would need to appear in the top 200 to receive serious consideration.

Geographically, these are candidates: Pittsburgh 52, Iowa State 152-200, Cincinnati 152-200, Nebraska 152-200, Kansas 201-302, Kentucky 201-302, Missouri 201-302, Notre Dame 201-302.

Kentucky is SEC, and would have no reason to ever move. Notre Dame has already turned them down. Can't see Nebraska or Kansas even remotely considering a move from the Big 12, and probably not Missouri. Iowa State might, with a natural rival in the Big Ten.

Cincinnati and Pitt are intriguing, and would bring in major media markets. Syracuse is also solid, but doesn't have the international reputation.

I think Pitt should be as coveted as Notre Dame. I'd rank Iowa State, Cincinnati, Missouri and Syracuse pretty much equal. After that, I don't see any point to expansion. Elevating a MAC school is not going to happen. Those are all regional universities.

[Julio Riddols]

if they did do 12 teams, I would love to see the conference renamed "The Dirty Dozen".

[Dr. Sak]

Why the hell would 11 teams play 9 games like he says? They would obviously play 10. His theory is wrong no matter what but even his odd completely wrong mathematical analysis doesn't have the correct set-up.

Yeah I figured I messed up about 10 minutes after I posted it, but was too lazy to come downstairs and edit the post.

You aren't going to find teams wanting to play 10 conference games because some of the bigger schools want to use at least 3 OOC games for 3 additional home games for revenue.

[Swaggs]

Pitt and Cincinnati do not really add any additional markets, as Penn State and Ohio State already have as much of (or more) a foothold in those areas.

I think Rutgers or Missouri make the most sense from a market standpoint (assuming that ND has no interest whatsoever), although I think the assumption that Rutgers will deliver the New York market may be a bit overblown.

[Dr. Sak]

Pitt and Cincinnati do not really add any additional markets, as Penn State and Ohio State already have as much of (or more) a foothold in those areas.

And who is really to say Pitt, Cincinnati or even Syracuse would want to leave the Big East. Two of those schools are big into basketball so why would they want to leave, arguably the best basketball conference in the country?

[Logan]

The Big 10 should avoid Pitt - their lack of traveling fans for bowl games (when they make one) has hurt the Big East.

[Passacaglia]

It's been the week before Thanksgiving my entire life.



Nit picking here, but it's been the weekend after Thanksgiving a few times, and starting next year with the extra week off, it will be the weekend after Thanksgiving for the next three years at least.

[Matthean]

And who is really to say Pitt, Cincinnati or even Syracuse would want to leave the Big East. Two of those schools are big into basketball so why would they want to leave, arguably the best basketball conference in the country?

It's easier to win the conference title in basketball since MSU is the only real consistent standout team and that's vastly because Izzo is there now. It's not like winning the conference title in football would be that difficult either at this point in time. If Kelly continues to build up Cincinnati, I highly doubt OSU fans want to see another school from Ohio being the Big Ten champ. :lol:

[Passacaglia]

How about DePaul? They fit geographically, and probably academically. Okay, yeah, so they don't have a football team at the moment, but I'm sure they could scrounge something together if they joined. But hey, it's not like the new team has to be competitive -- bringing in a doormat should be fine, and in fact, most Big Ten fans would probably prefer that over a new team coming in and kicking everyone's butt.

[Dr. Sak]

I have no knowledge of this but pure speculation, but I really think when the Big Ten got Penn State to join, they thought that Notre Dame would not be far behind. Penn State and Notre Dame were one of the last few teams left (powerhouses) as Independents. So by taking one, I think they thought the other would struggle for a bit then follow into the Big Ten.

But as I stated earlier, the Big East threw Notre Dame a big bone, and they were able to work out their own deal with the BCS. So all of that threw a huge wrench in the plans to get a 12th team.

[Logan]

How about DePaul? They fit geographically, and probably academically. Okay, yeah, so they don't have a football team at the moment, but I'm sure they could scrounge something together if they joined. But hey, it's not like the new team has to be competitive -- bringing in a doormat should be fine, and in fact, most Big Ten fans would probably prefer that over a new team coming in and kicking everyone's butt.

The 12th team needs to bring something to the table economically for it to be worth it for the 11 teams to give up that piece of the pie.

[Passacaglia]

The 12th team needs to bring something to the table economically for it to be worth it for the 11 teams to give up that piece of the pie.

Oh, well if that's the case, then I think the article quoted in post 31 has it right -- Notre Dame is your only option.

[Samdari]

And who is really to say Pitt, Cincinnati or even Syracuse would want to leave the Big East. Two of those schools are big into basketball so why would they want to leave, arguably the best basketball conference in the country?

All of those schools are pretty big into basketball.

From a lot of perspectives, its more attractive to be in the Big Ten in basketball. First of all, the real reasons that anyone would switch conferences would be money. And there's more paid to Big 10 schools from athletics than the Big East lots more.

There is also a financial incentive to be in the Big 10 for basketball reasons. The Big East was considered among the best basketball conferences ever this season, and got 50% of their teams in the NCAA. The Big 10 had a down year for them, are generally considered lower than the Big East in the heirarchy of the BCS 6, and got 63% of their teams in. Having a lower percentage of the teams make the tournament is going to be a regular thing with the Big East, and its going to catch up with them financially.

I have heard a lot of arguments as to why Syracuse would not want to join the Big 10 and they're all ridiculous. They'd go in a heartbeat, were a spot offered.

That said, I don't think they'd ever be considered. I'd venture a guess that its 98% wait for Notre Dame and 2% Pitt.

[gstelmack]

The way the BCS works, the Big Ten needs a championship game. Unfortunately, how to do that without screwing up the Michigan/Ohio State season-ender is very difficult.

With 12 teams, it's easy. The ACC model uses divisions, and a rotating schedule against the other division, with if I remember correctly one permanent "rivalry" game in the other division.

With 11, they still have to take the permanent rivalry and rotate the other games.

[Logan]

Oh, well if that's the case, then I think the article quoted in post 31 has it right -- Notre Dame is your only option.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but didn't Notre Dame just sign extensions to all their sweet deals? If they could get those terms again, given their lack of success recently, I don't see when it would ever be possible to get them into a conference.

[Logan]

There is also a financial incentive to be in the Big 10 for basketball reasons. The Big East was considered among the best basketball conferences ever this season, and got 50% of their teams in the NCAA. The Big 10 had a down year for them, are generally considered lower than the Big East in the heirarchy of the BCS 6, and got 63% of their teams in. Having a lower percentage of the teams make the tournament is going to be a regular thing with the Big East, and its going to catch up with them financially.

There's a lot of talk that the Big East will soon split into what amounts to the football schools and the basketball schools.

[JonInMiddleGA]

Correct me if I'm wrong, but didn't Notre Dame just sign extensions to all their sweet deals? If they could get those terms again, given their lack of success recently, I don't see when it would ever be possible to get them into a conference.

Yep, through 2015.
Notre Dame, NBC extend football contract through 2015 :: Partnership between the University and network to reach 25 years - NOTRE DAME OFFICIAL ATHLETIC SITE (http://www.und.com/genrel/061908aab.html)

And the university would be loathe to give that up for any reason. It's too lucrative a deal and a good bit of the money goes back into the academic, rather than the athletic, fund.

Revenues from the NBC contract have played a key role in Notre Dame's financial aid endowment since the start of the relationship in 1991. University officers decided then to use a portion of the football television contract revenue for undergraduate scholarship endowment (not athletic scholarships). To date, some 2,400 Notre Dame undergraduate students have received nearly $26 million in aid.

The University also has committed NBC revenues to endow doctoral fellowships in its Graduate School and MBA scholarships in its Mendoza College of Business.

The revenue generated through the NBC contract is a primary reason why Forbes magazine has recognized the substantial financial contributions made by Irish athletics to the University's academic enterprise. In a 2007 survey, Forbes reported that the Notre Dame football program returns $21.1 million to academic initiatives, a total that is more than the survey's next five programs combined.

[mckerney]

I think Michigan and Ohio state would rather secede from the Big Ten than give up The Game.

If divisions were created, they would have to be in the same division, and thus never meet for the conference title.

Why would they have to be in seperate divisions? If the Big Ten did expand I'd be surprised if Michigan and Ohio State weren't in opposite divisions with a rule for teams meeting a rival in the opposite division every year.

[Passacaglia]

Delany's at it again:

Big Ten's Delany: Obama doesn't understand BCS 'complexity' - USATODAY.com (http://www.usatoday.com/sports/college/football/bigten/2009-05-20-jim-delany-obama-bcs_N.htm?csp=34)


Big Ten's Delany: Obama doesn't understand BCS 'complexity'
Updated | Comment | Recommend E-mail | Save | Print |
By Marlen Garcia, USA TODAY

CHICAGO — Every time the most powerful man in the world, President Obama, pushes for a national playoff in college football, he is at odds with Big Ten Conference Commissioner Jim Delany, one of the most influential figures in college sports and a staunch proponent of the Bowl Championship Series that currently crowns a national champion.

Asked Tuesday for his thoughts on the president's repeated overtures for a playoff, Delany said he respectfully disagrees.

"It's very hard to be disagreeable with a popular president, that's my first thought," Delany said. "The reality is that he has a pulpit and people listen. I think his strength is probably basketball brackets."

Obama filled out an NCAA tournament bracket in men's basketball and accurately predicted that North Carolina, a heavy favorite, would win the title.

The president initially voiced his wish for a football playoff last fall while campaigning and has remained an advocate. "He probably has an interest as a fan," Delany said. "He's a scholar and a lawyer and a great politician, but I don't think he really understands the complexity of the issue."

The issue of a national playoff has generated heated debate in recent years and was a hot topic this month for a subcommittee of the U.S. House of Representatives.

Delany, who doesn't know Obama, has given testimony on the BCS in past Congressional hearings and isn't discounting the possibility of another appearance.

"I hope I don't get invited," he said. "It would be my third trip. I'll try to explain the complexity of it. I'll try to explain the importance of the Rose Bowl, the importance of the regular season, the importance of the bowl system.

"The people I work for are the presidents, the coaches, the faculty and the athletic directors. It's not unanimous, but there's a super majority in each of one of those groups that support what we're doing."

Delany said a BCS contract is in place for the next five years. "But the way (Obama) is going, he's probably going to get re-elected so we'll probably have to deal with it after that," he said.

[Kodos]

Heh. At least in NCAA 2010, if I get it, I can swap the Big Ten teams with those in the Big 12, and then just drop one team in the new "Big Ten". Looks like Notre Dame will be joining the Big Ten after all. :)

[Passacaglia]

Heh. At least in NCAA 2010, if I get it, I can swap the Big Ten teams with those in the Big 12, and then just drop one team in the new "Big Ten". Looks like Notre Dame will be joining the Big Ten after all. :)

So what happens to the Big 12?

[Kodos]

They get shoved into the Big Ten, and one of them becomes an independent.

[Young Drachma]

Heh. At least in NCAA 2010, if I get it, I can swap the Big Ten teams with those in the Big 12, and then just drop one team in the new "Big Ten". Looks like Notre Dame will be joining the Big Ten after all. :)

Yeah, I can't wait for the custom conferences. Should be awesome. Console games have their place, but that'll make the game a lot more interesting than it's been for me in years.

[Kodos]

I'd like to see the Big Ten either add Notre Dame, or stop having teams schedule Notre Dame.


hxxp://rivals.yahoo.com/ncaa/football/news?slug=ap-paterno-bigtenexpansion&prov=ap&type=lgns

Paterno: Expand Big Ten, but no Notre Dame

AP - May 27, 7:51 pm EDT

FOGELSVILLE, Pa. (AP)—Joe Paterno says he’d like to see either Rutgers, Pittsburgh or Syracuse join the Big Ten.

The Penn State coach also knows who he wants to keep out: Notre Dame.

Paterno, meeting with reporters Wednesday at an alumni event near Allentown, has long pushed for Big Ten expansion. A 12th team could ease scheduling difficulties and clear the way for a lucrative conference title game. Penn State joined as the conference’s 11th team in 1990.

Paterno said he’d like the Big Ten to add an Eastern school, especially one that plays in the New York media market. That would seem to favor Rutgers.

“If I had my choice, someone that can give us the biggest TV exposure in the East,” Paterno said, offering as possibilities “Syracuse, Pitt, Rutgers. Not in that order.”

Notre Dame rejected an invitation to join the Big Ten a decade ago.

“There’s some pressure, I would suppose, to maybe go back to Notre Dame and ask again, which I would not be happy with,” Paterno said. “I think they’ve had their chance.”

[Swaggs]

Other than Notre Dame, is there really another team out there that would raise the income of the Big 10 enough to justify their inclusion? Maybe Texas?

[Young Drachma]

Big Ten to explore possibility of expansion in next 12 to 18 months - ESPN (http://sports.espn.go.com/ncaa/news/story?id=4745381)
The Big Ten Conference will explore the possibility of expansion in the next 12 to 18 months, according to a statement the league will release at 4 p.m. ET Tuesday. There will be no press conference to make the announcement.

[PackerFanatic]

I'd rather have a Championship game before a 12th team.

[Young Drachma]

I'd rather have a Championship game before a 12th team.

You can't without a 12th team. NCAA rules. It's why the ACC expanded.

[Honolulu_Blue]

You can't without a 12th team. NCAA rules. It's why the ACC expanded.

Exactly. And a 12th team will, in all likelihood, mean there will be a championship game. That's a big part of the reason to add a 12th team.

[Young Drachma]

Given all of the money Rutgers has spent on football over the past few years, I want it to be them. I think it'd justify it and have lasting long-term effect on the institution. I don't know how any of the other options would even come close to offering what RU does academically and athletically either. (Besides football, the school is pretty good at other sports sans men's basketball)

Plus, I think it would ensure Schiano really does stay for good. No reason to move within the league, if we kick it up a notch. So this is good news.

Replacing them in the league wouldn't be hard either to recruit a football-only member to keep the league at 8 teams for football or to add a few others and break up the basketball conference.

[PackerFanatic]

You can't without a 12th team. NCAA rules. It's why the ACC expanded.

Huh - I didn't realize that.

[DanGarion]

Isn't there already a Big-12?

[Young Drachma]

Isn't there already a Big-12?

Word has it, they'd become the "Big North". Just made up by a bunch of journalists tho. I'm thinking the Big Ten brand being what it is, they might just keep the name anyway...12 minus 2 be damned.

[Abe Sargent]

It's been the week before Thanksgiving my entire life.

I think they'd be in the same division if the conference goes to a championship game. It's more a natural to divide East and West from a travel perspective.

As far as invitations, It's snobby, but the Big Ten is obsessive about academics. The university presidents would never accept a school without an international reputation.

From the Academic Ranking of World Universities, 2008:

Wisconsin 17, Michigan 21, Illinois 26, Minnesota 28, Northwestern 30, Penn State 42, Ohio State 62, Purdue 65, Michigan State 83, Indiana 92, Iowa 101-150 (97 in 2007).

Only the Ivy League is as particular (and takes it to another level). And these are world rankings. So I think a school would need to appear in the top 200 to receive serious consideration.

Geographically, these are candidates: Pittsburgh 52, Iowa State 152-200, Cincinnati 152-200, Nebraska 152-200, Kansas 201-302, Kentucky 201-302, Missouri 201-302, Notre Dame 201-302.

Kentucky is SEC, and would have no reason to ever move. Notre Dame has already turned them down. Can't see Nebraska or Kansas even remotely considering a move from the Big 12, and probably not Missouri. Iowa State might, with a natural rival in the Big Ten.

Cincinnati and Pitt are intriguing, and would bring in major media markets. Syracuse is also solid, but doesn't have the international reputation.

I think Pitt should be as coveted as Notre Dame. I'd rank Iowa State, Cincinnati, Missouri and Syracuse pretty much equal. After that, I don't see any point to expansion. Elevating a MAC school is not going to happen. Those are all regional universities.

Pitt doesn;t go anywhere without WVU, and vice versa. It would be like Michigan wanting to leave the conference Ohio State is in.

[Young Drachma]

Plus, I doubt Penn State wants anything to do with Pitt in the same conference.

[Abe Sargent]

Plus, I doubt Penn State wants anything to do with Pitt in the same conference.

True

[Lathum]

If they can't get ND then Rutgers makes a ton of sense. They will get a nice boost from the NY/NJ market that watches the games in addition to the recent success.

[Solecismic]

Plus, I doubt Penn State wants anything to do with Pitt in the same conference.

Paterno has been quoted saying Pitt, Rutgers or Syracuse would be his choice. Why wouldn't they want Pitt?

I hadn't considered Rutgers because of the distance. Rutgers would be an excellent choice, though.

MGoBlog says Pitt and Missouri are the leading contenders. I would say Pitt and Rutgers, instead.

West Virginia has asked to join in the past. As did Texas, before the Big XII formed. Texas would be perfect if it weren't so far away.

The schools will likely require that any new member belong to the AAU (Association of American Universities) which is a group of 62 universities that emphasize academic research and education.

All eleven Big Ten schools belong to this group. It is the only conference (including the Ivy League) that can make that claim. FBS schools not in the Big Ten in the AAU include: Duke, Rice, Stanford, Syracuse, Tulane, USC and Vanderbilt (private) and Arizona, Buffalo, California, UCLA, San Diego State, Colorado, Florida, Iowa State, Kansas, Maryland, Missouri, Nebraska, Rutgers, North Carolina, Oregon, Pittsburgh, Texas, Texas A&M, Virginia and Washington.

The conference by-laws mandate that a new member must be in or adjacent to Big Ten territory. This leaves Syracuse, Buffalo, Iowa State, Maryland, Missouri, Nebraska, Rutgers and Pittsburgh as possibilities. I've read that Notre Dame would be invited to join the AAU if it accepted the offer to join the Big Ten - the academic strengths there are not in question.

Buffalo is new to the FBS and doesn't have the athletic program requirements. Maryland is far too tied to the ACC. So it's Big East (Syracuse, Pitt, Rutgers), Big XII (Iowa State, Missouri, Nebraska) or Notre Dame, which has already said no more than once.

I would have dismissed the Big XII because it's already a top conference. But I keep reading that the northern Big XII schools are unhappy with revenue splits. That said, I don't think those three schools pack quite the wallop academically. Iowa State doesn't help with territory. Nebraska and Missouri have great rivalries within the conference and were charter members of the Big 8.

Syracuse is a very good school, but doesn't have the international reputation the others on the list have. Much harder for a private school. It's also in a more minor television territory.

To me, Pitt and Rutgers are 1A and 1B. And I think either would accept.

[Kodos]

Wanny in the Big Ten? It's about time I benefit from his coaching skillz.

[timmynausea]

Paterno has been quoted saying Pitt, Rutgers or Syracuse would be his choice. Why wouldn't they want Pitt?

Pitt got into the Big East (and PSU got rejected) when it was a basketball only conference, and the Panthers refused to leave the conference when Paterno was trying to form an Eastern all sports conference. PSU eventually joined the Big Ten and quit playing Pitt a few years later. Many seem to feel that Paterno still hates Pitt.

[Honolulu_Blue]

To me, Pitt and Rutgers are 1A and 1B. And I think either would accept.

I totally agree.

[Lathum]

Either would accept for sure. If the Big 10 gets RU they gain a huge TV base and I think that could be a big factor in their decision. I would imagine they already do well in the Pitt market, so no big gain would be made there.

If RU does end up in the Big 10 erect a Schiano statue right now.

[Samdari]

Syracuse is a very good school, but doesn't have the international reputation the others on the list have. Much harder for a private school. It's also in a more minor television territory.

Are you seriously suggesting that Rutgers has a better academic reputation than Syracuse? The "I couldn't get in anywhere else" state university of New Jersey?

Syracuse also historically delivers better ratings in NYC than Rutgers does. They are largely considered to 'deliver' that market - that's why they joined the Big East (which was formed with big media markets in mind) in the first place.

No way is Rutgers Big 10 material.

[timmynausea]

I can see from a financial perspective why RU would jump at the Big Ten opportunity, but I think if I was an RU a fan, I'd have mixed feelings about moving. Schiano has never beaten WVU, for example. Might want to wait until he plays Penn State and Ohio State a few times before you erect any statues.

I see your point. Before RU's success these past few years, this might not have been much of a consideration. Still, it just screams "be careful what you wish for" to me.

[Solecismic]

Are you seriously suggesting that Rutgers has a better academic reputation than Syracuse? The "I couldn't get in anywhere else" state university of New Jersey?

Syracuse also historically delivers better ratings in NYC than Rutgers does. They are largely considered to 'deliver' that market - that's why they joined the Big East (which was formed with big media markets in mind) in the first place.

No way is Rutgers Big 10 material.

Of the schools being discussed, according to the QS World University rankings: Pittsburgh 114, Notre Dame 119, Rutgers 183, Iowa State 330, Missouri and Nebraska 401-500, Syracuse 501-600.

Reputation isn't all about whether you're a private school and can operate without admitting a wider variety of students. State schools do have some obligation to serve the taxpayers. For instance, Ohio State is a mess freshman year, because it does admit everyone in-state. But the freshman classes weed out scores of students, and a degree from Ohio State is still quite valuable. Ohio State ranks 129th.

Whether Rutgers delivers NYC is definitely debatable. I would agree Syracuse might be stronger there, particularly in basketball. But delivering New Jersey solidly and getting a piece of NYC and Philadelphia is hardly a bad proposition.

[Lathum]

I can see from a financial perspective why RU would jump at the Big Ten opportunity, but I think if I was an RU a fan, I'd have mixed feelings about moving. Schiano has never beaten WVU, for example. Might want to wait until he plays Penn State and Ohio State a few times before you erect any statues.

I see your point. Before RU's success these past few years, this might not have been much of a consideration. Still, it just screams "be careful what you wish for" to me.

Being in the Big 10 would open up a lot of recruiting doors and if Schiano has proven anything it is that he can recruit, add in the success of Ray Rice, Kenny Britt, etc... Schiano is showing he can get guys ready for the NFL.

[claphamsa]

why dont they kick out Northwestern and add both pitt an WVU!

[Young Drachma]

Piscataway/New Brunswick might compare to the other boonville locations of most teams in the Big 10, but...being a train ride away from NYC would be an alluring proposition to many a recruit.

While being 5th to 7th in the Big 10 for a while might not seem like a lot of fun, the benefits would outweigh over a long period of time, I think and could only help their brand.

College football fans in the northeast haven't really had much of an opportunity to appreciate what big time college football is like. Sure, BC is now in the ACC, but..Boston has a lot of pro sports distractions.

Jersey doesn't. As for the stadium problem, shifting games to the new Meadowlands won't be hard to do, I imagine. Nor would some sort of deal to play an occasional game in NYC at say Citifield/Yankee Stadium in the future to keep RU on their tongues.

We're in a new football reality. Army isn't as compelling as it was say, 60 years ago and Syracuse basketball notwithstanding, not much going on there either.

Rutgers was a doormat for a long long time. But I think this move can only help recruiting and long term prospects for the school.

As for Rutgers reputation, it's far brighter outside of the NYC metro area than it is within it. So for anyone living in NY/NJ especially, you can kinda mock it if you want to, but...you go other places -- especially in academia -- and the school's star is still very bright.

If New Jersey didn't export more college students (meaning HS graduates who go on to college) than any other state, it'd probably be an even better school than it is.

[Young Drachma]

why dont they kick out Northwestern and add both pitt an WVU!

Because they're operating under the false impression that college students is at least superficially about academics.

;)

[timmynausea]

Being in the Big 10 would open up a lot of recruiting doors and if Schiano has proven anything it is that he can recruit, add in the success of Ray Rice, Kenny Britt, etc... Schiano is showing he can get guys ready for the NFL.

That's true. I don't mean to imply that there's no way Rutgers could succeed in the Big 10. They've long been considered a sleeping giant because of the wealth of talent in close proximity. Still, looking at Schiano's game day coaching and the school's history, I'd be worried that about becoming a cellar dweller quickly. And again, I say all of this thinking like a fan. Based on the financial numbers I've seen, Rutgers would and should absolutely accept.

The Big East's BCS bid isn't going anywhere, though, and the conference continues to do well in ratings (WVU-Pitt this year set an ESPN2 record.) I know WVU's, RU's and Pitt's recruiting have all improved dramatically since the ACC raid, and I think the profiles and prestige of all of the successful BE football programs will only continue to rise. I just think you could make a good case that Rutgers is better off in a league where they need to beat Pitt and WVU to make the BCS rather than PSU and OSU.

[Lathum]

I just think you could make a good case that Rutgers is better off in a league where they need to beat Pitt and WVU to make the BCS rather than PSU and OSU.

I think there is more to it then that though. Plus we also now know even if you go undefeated in the Big east you may not play for the title.

With the young talent RU has coming back and coming in I think you can put them betreewn 4th and 6th in the big 10 behind PSU, OSU and Iowa. I think they are ahead of Minn, NW, Mich, Purdue , Indiana and are on par with Illinois, MSU, and Wisconsin.

[Logan]

Are you seriously suggesting that Rutgers has a better academic reputation than Syracuse? The "I couldn't get in anywhere else" state university of New Jersey?

Can I get a ruling on whether we're allowed to call others "ignorant d-bags"? Just wondering...

Syracuse also historically delivers better ratings in NYC than Rutgers does. They are largely considered to 'deliver' that market - that's why they joined the Big East (which was formed with big media markets in mind) in the first place.

No way is Rutgers Big 10 material.

Do yourself a favor and look up the highest rated ESPN college football game ever in NYC. Then look up when in history Syracuse last delivered a decent rating in the city. You're going to be looking for a long time. You guys get such good ratings that ESPN punted the RU-Cuse game to the internet (the only conference game we played this year that wasn't televised).

I can see from a financial perspective why RU would jump at the Big Ten opportunity, but I think if I was an RU a fan, I'd have mixed feelings about moving. Schiano has never beaten WVU, for example. Might want to wait until he plays Penn State and Ohio State a few times before you erect any statues.

I see your point. Before RU's success these past few years, this might not have been much of a consideration. Still, it just screams "be careful what you wish for" to me.

It would definitely be tough, and I'm fully on record stating that Schiano is lacking as a gameday coach - the above-referenced Syracuse loss was one of his finest disasters - and it would be an adjustment. But I think when the team is playing at its best they can compete at the level of those teams, and could further do so with the recruiting bump the conference switch would come with.

But let's also be honest...a 7-5 record in the Big East sends you to Toronto against a MAC team while the same record in the Big 10 gets your fans games they can be interested in against SEC, Pac 10 and Big 12 teams, which brings in more money and more exposure. A 9-3 record in the Big East could send you to Birmingham or St Petersburg, and even if you knock that record down a game or two in the Big 10, you're still playing in a better bowl against a better opponent.

And despite what many might think, the Big East is competitive enough every year where even a good team could find itself with up to 3 losses so it's not like teams that tear through the Big East would suddenly be below .500 in the Big 10. You'll also always have a good shot at a second BCS bowl and it would be extremely tough for an undefeated Big 10 team to not get into the championship game.

All outside of this, Rutgers is already a pretty good research school, but getting access to the Big 10 for that would give an enormous benefit to the school financially, which they really need like you said.

[RedKingGold]

Can I get a ruling on whether we're allowed to call others "ignorant d-bags"? Just wondering...

Yes, you ignorant d-bag. :D

[kcchief19]

Alright, the homer here. Why no love for Missouri? Missouri was on the short list the last time the Big 10 expanded and fits in very well with the other conference schools -- it's a state university, it has some world-premiere academic programs, huge alumni/donor base, a billion-dollar fundraising campaign/program and good geographic fit.

Pittsburgh, Syracuse and Rutgers don't deliver the Big 10 anything it doesn't have already. The Big 10 already has penetration in the Pennsylvania media markets and Syracuse and Rutgers don't have a strong media market -- neither one deliver NY all by themselves.

Missouri would deliver two brand new top 30 markets with Kansas City and St. Louis and an entirely brand new state. We already have a built-in rivalry with Illinois and would quickly develop a rivalry with Indiana and Iowa. We already have a "journalism bowl" rivalry with Northwestern.

As Jim mentioned, Missouri is hurt in the rankings because it's the only true statewide university in the state. Missouri State has traditionally been a regional university and is still limited in what it can offer academical. There are a number of fields, especially journalism, chemistry, agriculture, veterinarian medicine and others where Missouri is considered world class. A Missouri degree is a good get.

Missouri could definitely compete athletically in football, basketball and many women's sports. I definitely feel like there's an eastern bias in the discussion -- I think the western side of the Big 10 would prefer Missouri over Syracuse or Rutgers.

I'd be all in favor of it. The big thing Missouri would lose would be a rivalry with Kansas but right now we play the Bragging Rights game in St. Louis with Illinois. No reason we couldn't play KU in the nonconference in Kansas City in football and basketball. The only drawback is that right now our football program has a great pipeline into Texas and a move could hurt that.

[M GO BLUE!!!]

why dont they kick out Northwestern and add both pitt an WVU!

Not a bad idea. Although I'm sure a certain coach at a school I will avoid naming probably doesn't want to have his ass kicked by WVU every year...

[M GO BLUE!!!]

Because they're operating under the false impression that college students is at least superficially about academics.

;)

Nice lernin' you got there!

[Swaggs]

Does anyone know what markets the B10 Network already reaches? It seems like adding a team like Pitt, which fits in almost all areas but doesn't give the conference a market that they don't already own w/ Penn State, would only make sense if they are interested in making a move just to add a 12th team. I'd imagine Penn State's market also has some influence in Philadelphia, but I'm not sure on that.

That is why I brought up Texas before, as I imagine they would bring all the major markets in the state. But, if the Big 10 Network is already shown in Texas, it doesn't make as much sense.

Wikipedia says that it is available in 19 of the top 20 markets, but that may only be through the satelite carriers. Anyone know the ins and outs of the B10Network?

[tarcone]

I get it in St Louis, My parents get it in Ocala, FL. I think (not positive) my sister gets it in Ft Lauderdale.

The thing with Missouri is that PSU wants a travel partner/Rival. Plus another East Coast team wouldnt hurt. Missouri also bailed out on a contract for football games with Iowa. Not sure if that would affect their candidacy or not.

I really dont care who joins. But Texas would be awesome.

[Abe Sargent]

To me, Pitt and Rutgers are 1A and 1B. And I think either would accept.

After the Big East raid, Pitt and WVU got really tight, more than usual. It was obvious that each wanted the other badly. I think you might get both, but the chance of getting one or the other in your conference, whatever it's name, just isn;t good anymore.

[kcchief19]

Texas isn't even in the conversation. No way would Texas ever go into a situation as a second fiddle, and it makes no geographic or rivalry sense. Plus, the state's politics make it an untenable situation. There's a reason why the Big 12 got stuck with Baylor -- the governor was an alum and said you take Baylor or the other Texas schools can't join. Texas has a huge amount of power in the Big 12 and they want to consolidate it.

The Big 10 network is on most cable systems in major markets. Market penetration isn't an issue, just market share. You add Pittsburgh and how many viewers does the network pickup that it doesn't already have?

Missouri's biggest draws are that it has two decent media markets that would boost viewership of the network more significantly than the Big 10 could pick up in other markets. You're also locking down an entire state -- Missouri is one only a few states that only have one FBS team.

[the_meanstrosity]

Texas isn't even in the conversation. No way would Texas ever go into a situation as a second fiddle, and it makes no geographic or rivalry sense. Plus, the state's politics make it an untenable situation. There's a reason why the Big 12 got stuck with Baylor -- the governor was an alum and said you take Baylor or the other Texas schools can't join. Texas has a huge amount of power in the Big 12 and they want to consolidate it.

The Big 10 network is on most cable systems in major markets. Market penetration isn't an issue, just market share. You add Pittsburgh and how many viewers does the network pickup that it doesn't already have?

Missouri's biggest draws are that it has two decent media markets that would boost viewership of the network more significantly than the Big 10 could pick up in other markets. You're also locking down an entire state -- Missouri is one only a few states that only have one FBS team.

Didn't the Big Ten turn Missouri down once before? Would this constitute as battered woman syndrome?

And let me add that Missouri reaps what they sow. They and Colorado were the two Big 12 north schools that voted for Steve Hatchell as the Big 12 conference commissioner. So if you have a problem with the way the Big 12 is run in Texas then you have only yourselves to blame.

[Galaxy]

I don't see Texas. No way they'll move.

If the Big 10 does add a 12th team, will this make the Pac-10 look to add 2 teams?

[Swaggs]

Maybe I am wrong, but I don't see how anyone, outside of SEC teams and Notre Dame, are in position to say no. I posted this in the other thread, but it is worth re-posting:

Conf Teams $/Year $/Yr/Tm TV Partners
SEC 12 $205.0 $17.1 CBS, ESPN
Big 10 11 $174.0 $15.8 BTN, ABC/ESPN, CBS*
ND 1 $11.0 $11.0 NBC, Big East*
Big 12 12 $79.5 $6.6 ABC/ESPN, FSN
ACC 12 $66.9 $5.6 ABC/ESPN, Raycom*
Pac 10 10 $53.2 $5.3 ABC/ESPN, FSN, ABC/ESPN*
Big East 8^ $45.3 $3.7 ABC/ESPN, CBS*
MWC 9 $12.0 $1.3 CBSC/Mtn.
CUSA 12 $11.3 $0.9 CBSC, ESPN
WAC 9 $4.0 $0.4 ESPN
MAC 13 $1.4 $0.1 ESPN
Sunbelt 9 $0.0 $0.0 ESPN, Cox/Charter


The Big 10 teams each get $15.8M from their television deals. The Big 12 average is "only" $6.6M, but their distribution is weighted differently, so I guess it is possible that Texas is much closer to the Big 10's average. As someone else mentioned, Texas' athletic budget is so ridiculously high that $8-10M isn't nearly as valuable to them as it is to about 115 other teams. :) Still, I think it would be tempting for them to consider the move, although I can see the argument of wanting to keep the Texas teams together and being able to tell Texas recruits that they will play in the state of Texas several times a year.

[the_meanstrosity]

Maybe I am wrong, but I don't see how anyone, outside of SEC teams and Notre Dame, are in position to say no. I posted this in the other thread, but it is worth re-posting:

Conf Teams $/Year $/Yr/Tm TV Partners
SEC 12 $205.0 $17.1 CBS, ESPN
Big 10 11 $174.0 $15.8 BTN, ABC/ESPN, CBS*
ND 1 $11.0 $11.0 NBC, Big East*
Big 12 12 $79.5 $6.6 ABC/ESPN, FSN
ACC 12 $66.9 $5.6 ABC/ESPN, Raycom*
Pac 10 10 $53.2 $5.3 ABC/ESPN, FSN, ABC/ESPN*
Big East 8^ $45.3 $3.7 ABC/ESPN, CBS*
MWC 9 $12.0 $1.3 CBSC/Mtn.
CUSA 12 $11.3 $0.9 CBSC, ESPN
WAC 9 $4.0 $0.4 ESPN
MAC 13 $1.4 $0.1 ESPN
Sunbelt 9 $0.0 $0.0 ESPN, Cox/Charter


The Big 10 teams each get $15.8M from their television deals. The Big 12 average is "only" $6.6M, but their distribution is weighted differently, so I guess it is possible that Texas is much closer to the Big 10's average. As someone else mentioned, Texas' athletic budget is so ridiculously high that $8-10M isn't nearly as valuable to them as it is to about 115 other teams. :) Still, I think it would be tempting for them to consider the move, although I can see the argument of wanting to keep the Texas teams together and being able to tell Texas recruits that they will play in the state of Texas several times a year.

I think if Texas were to leave the Big 12 (which they likely wouldn't unless something changed drastically) then it would be for the SEC. I just don't see them fitting in with the Big Ten. Plus isn't their a Big Ten rule that suggests new members must border a current member? I'm sure that could get voted down in a hurry if they actually had a legit chance for Texas.

I think the best chance for a 12th team in the Big Ten is Pittsburgh, Syracuse, or Rutgers. If none of those teams were interested then they could always offer it to Missouri who has certainly indicated they would listen though I still believe they are being babies about it because they were snubbed by better bowls twice in recent years. The first time they were snubbed they blamed it on Kansas' athletic director. Now they are blaming it on the Big 12. Babies.

[BishopMVP]

Maybe I am wrong, but I don't see how anyone, outside of SEC teams and Notre Dame, are in position to say no. I posted this in the other thread, but it is worth re-posting:

Conf Teams $/Year $/Yr/Tm TV Partners
SEC 12 $205.0 $17.1 CBS, ESPN
Big 10 11 $174.0 $15.8 BTN, ABC/ESPN, CBS*
ND 1 $11.0 $11.0 NBC, Big East*
Big 12 12 $79.5 $6.6 ABC/ESPN, FSN
ACC 12 $66.9 $5.6 ABC/ESPN, Raycom*
Pac 10 10 $53.2 $5.3 ABC/ESPN, FSN, ABC/ESPN*
Big East 8^ $45.3 $3.7 ABC/ESPN, CBS*
MWC 9 $12.0 $1.3 CBSC/Mtn.
CUSA 12 $11.3 $0.9 CBSC, ESPN
WAC 9 $4.0 $0.4 ESPN
MAC 13 $1.4 $0.1 ESPN
Sunbelt 9 $0.0 $0.0 ESPN, Cox/Charter
If what was said/rumored about the new ACC football/bball contract with Fox is true they'd be added to the list. There's also talk about how much more these B10+Chicago schools make from the CIC? and research grants than any TV deal.Plus isn't their a Big Ten rule that suggests new members must border a current member? I'm sure that could get voted down in a hurry if they actually had a legit chance for Texas.ESPN's blogger seemed to think that reports of such a rule were erroneous. Either way, as you say, a conference by-law like that would be easily ignored if necessary.

[Passacaglia]

I would lose a lot of respect for the Big Ten if they added Texas.

I'm sure they'll be in tears over it.

[sooner333]

You can always just change the by-laws if everyone wanted Texas.

[Logan]

Friend of mine brought up what I think is a pretty good point about NYC's role in this.

The number of Big 10 alumni within the city and its surrounding areas compared to the number of Big East alumni has to be staggering. We have countless bars around here devoted to Wisconsin, Michigan, PSU, OSU, etc. Would the higher-ups at these schools not like being able to tell some of their biggest donors that at least every other year they would be playing a game a half hour away instead of hours (by car or plane) and needing to devote a whole weekend to catching a game? With the outside chance for a Big 10 Championship game at the new Meadowlands?

[molson]

I'm having a hard time imagining Rutgers "delivering" the NYC TV market to the Big 10, if that's how this is being sold. Are there any stats out there on what Rutgers does in NYC now (compared to say, what Pitt does total viewers-wise in western PA, or what Syracuse does in NY on the whole). NYC is never going to be a college sports town.

[Logan]

All I can tell you off the top of my head is that the Rutgers-Louisville game in 2006 did the highest NYC rating on ESPN ever for college football at an 8.15, and the 2007 game vs USF tied for the highest rating of the year for Thursday night football nationally, so I assume that the NYC market was strong there too.

[Young Drachma]

Rutgers games are broadcast in the city already via the Mets network SNY.

New Brunswick/Piscataway of course is in the NYC DMA. Syracuse isn't. Syracuse won't leave BIG EAST basketball, to play in the Big Ten. Rutgers didn't join the league as an all sport member until 1995.

[Logan]

Rutgers games are broadcast in the city already via the Mets network SNY.

To be more specific, Big East games are aired on SNY and haven't been in HD because the Big East can't negotiate a contract for shit. That will improve next year, thankfully.

[Swaggs]

I agree about Rutgers, but that is why I was wondering about the inner-workings of the B10 Network because I don't know where they are and what they charge -- I read somewhere that it costs $0.10/month in states w/o B10 teams and $1.10/month, on average, per carrier, but I'm not sure if that is true. I think Rutgers delivers the NYC market in the same way that WVU delivers the Pittsburgh market. Still, as previously mentioned, getting put on every cable carrier in NJ, strengthening Philadelphia (along w/ Penn State), and dipping a toe into NYC is still one of the better options out there.

The two things that make me wonder about Rutgers are:
1.) Why didn't the ACC take (or consider) them when they were making their power play just a few years ago? They were obviously behind the three teams that went and Syracuse in the pecking order and that has to make you wonder about their market impact.
2.) I have seen a lot of posts about expansion to give Penn State a regional partner or to appease Paterno, but I get the feeling that the B10 doesn't really hold PSU in the highest of regards due to the way the officials seem to often be pulling for traditional B10 teams over them and the manner in which Paterno was essentially hushed last season when bringing up the topic.

[miked]

I didn't really think PSU was that good? I mean, I'm not sure if Rutgers can handle them, but can somebody please educate a Big10 novice on some big PSU non-conference wins over the past few seasons? I understand they are usually ranked pretty well, but it seems the majority of people feel they are consistently overrated and don't even play everyone in their own conference every season.

[Swaggs]

Syracuse won't leave BIG EAST basketball, to play in the Big Ten. Rutgers didn't join the league as an all sport member until 1995.

I think that is a silly assertion. If any Big East team is offered a spot in the Big 10 and the opportunity to earn 5X+ more television money, they absolutely should and would jump at the opportunity.

Can you really imagine a scenario where Syracuse turns down the offer? And, the outcry from alumni, fans, and academics if they would and the Big 10 turns around and offers Pitt or Rutgers, either of whom would immediately accept, leaving Syracuse in a weakened Big East?

[Young Drachma]

I think Syracuse would go if offered, I just doubt they'd get an offer. I don't think the Big 10 wants another private school in that league.

[Young Drachma]

I think that is a silly assertion. If any Big East team is offered a spot in the Big 10 and the opportunity to earn 5X+ more television money, they absolutely should and would jump at the opportunity.

Can you really imagine a scenario where Syracuse turns down the offer? And, the outcry from alumni, fans, and academics if they would and the Big 10 turns around and offers Pitt or Rutgers, either of whom would immediately accept, leaving Syracuse in a weakened Big East?

It would just hasten the breakup of the football and all-sport leagues. The football league is the one on thin ice. But those teams could start a new league or find places to go.

[Logan]

The two things that make me wonder about Rutgers are:
1.) Why didn't the ACC take (or consider) them when they were making their power play just a few years ago? They were obviously behind the three teams that went and Syracuse in the pecking order and that has to make you wonder about their market impact.
2.) I have seen a lot of posts about expansion to give Penn State a regional partner or to appease Paterno, but I get the feeling that the B10 doesn't really hold PSU in the highest of regards due to the way the officials seem to often be pulling for traditional B10 teams over them and the manner in which Paterno was essentially hushed last season when bringing up the topic.

1) Well for one, "a few years ago" was 7 years ago when those discussions began, and it was year 2 of the Schiano era when the team was 1-11. A lot of people thought Rutgers could be a good program given the talent in the state, but no one thought it could be done quickly (which it didn't). No one was watching the team back then and I'm sure the ratings showed that. Would have been a giant leap of faith to bring us in, and honestly, I'm not sure if it's something the school would have wanted.

2) Having Paterno uninvolved might be best for Rutgers. Despite what some claim, Paterno and Schiano don't have the great relationship they once did ever since Paterno cautioned Schiano not to take the Rutgers job, said he would fail here and it would be the biggest mistake of his career. He was clearly worried about what he could accomplish.

(relax, I'm kidding)

[Kodos]

I really wish Big Ten teams would stop scheduling Notre Dame in football, since they are so insistent on not joining the Big Ten. Basically, I favor a join us or find some other teams to play policy.

Notre Dame Fighting Irish on potential Big Ten membership: We prefer independence - ESPN (http://sports.espn.go.com/ncf/news/story?id=4750901&campaign=rss&source=ESPNHeadlines)

Notre Dame unlikely Big Ten candidate

The Big Ten's decision to study expansion brings back an oft-asked question -- would Notre Dame consider joining the conference, which includes a number of its regional football rivals?

The answer is no, athletic director Jack Swarbrick told the Chicago Tribune.

"Our strong preference is to remain the way we are," Swarbrick said, according to the report. "Independence is a big part of the tradition of the program and our identity. We'd sure like to try to maintain it."

Notre Dame, which declined Big Ten membership in 1999, is one of three remaining major college football independents, along with Navy and Army. The Fighting Irish play in the Big East in other sports, including men's and women's basketball, and in the CCHA in ice hockey.

Swarbrick acknowledged that the major football conferences make even more money from their own media contracts than the $9 million Notre Dame is paid annually by NBC for the football rights. In the Big Ten, TV and radio rights fees generate $20 million a year for the schools.

But Swarbrick said the football program considers factors other than revenue, according to the Tribune.

"All of this has a lot more to do with our priorities than it does with business issues," Swarbrick said, according to the Tribune. "Our independence is tied up in a lot of the rivalries we have. We play Navy every year and have the tradition of USC weekends. Frankly, it works pretty well to play USC in October at home and in November at their place."

Notre Dame is not the only school that could be courted by the Big Ten. Missouri also previously has been mentioned as a potential expansion choice for the conference, due to geographic and academic factors.

In a statement released Tuesday, Missouri, a Big 12 member, said it had not yet been approached about Big Ten membership -- and didn't rule out the possibility.

"Should there be an official inquiry or invitation, we would evaluate it based upon what would be in the best interest of MU athletically and academically," the university said.

Other schools cited as potential candidates for Big Ten expansion have included Pittsburgh and Rutgers, both members of the Big East.

If a team other than Notre Dame joined the Big Ten, it could set off a chain reaction across other conferences, similar to what took place when Virginia Tech, Miami and Boston College bolted the Big East for the Atlantic Coast Conference. With that in mind, Notre Dame will keep an eye on the situation, Swarbrick said, according to the Tribune.

"The question that any school faces, not just Notre Dame, is: Does this start the dominoes falling again, like the last round of reconfiguration?" Swarbrick said, according to the report. "It's less about our willingness to enter into discussions than what happens to the industry. What are the implications?"

[Samdari]

Can you really imagine a scenario where Syracuse turns down the offer? And, the outcry from alumni, fans, and academics if they would and the Big 10 turns around and offers Pitt or Rutgers, either of whom would immediately accept, leaving Syracuse in a weakened Big East?

Its funny living here, everyone saying how awful being in the Big 10 would be, etc. It's also funny hearing them talk about what the AD is going to do. Isn't this such a far reaching decision, having such a high impact on the University, that it should be made at the Board of Regents level? Has to be, right?

You are, of course, absolutely right, that any BE school HAS to take any formal offer extended by the Big 10. I also agree with your primary reasoning - their other choice would be to stay in a further weakened Big East. It would be a tremendous disservice to their students - past, present, and future - to turn down that kind of revenue increase.

[Passacaglia]

It'd be awesome to see Missouri join, just so the Big Ten would have 12 teams, and the Big 12 would have 11.

[molson]

Its funny living here, everyone saying how awful being in the Big 10 would be, etc. It's also funny hearing them talk about what the AD is going to do. Isn't this such a far reaching decision, having such a high impact on the University, that it should be made at the Board of Regents level? Has to be, right?


Other than the financial benefits (which of course, is the only benefit that really matters), I wouldn't want to see Syracuse in the Big Ten. I love Big East basketball, and I'm pretty indifferent on Big Ten football. A team can be very ordinary and get to a BCS game in the Big East, and I really don't have championship aspirations for the football program.

[cartman]

Back when the SWC dissolved, there was quite a lot of talk about Texas moving to the Big 10 or Pac 10. But now, with the way things have developed over the past decade or so with the Big 12, that ship has long passed.

[SnDvls]

Back when the SWC dissolved, there was quite a lot of talk about Texas moving to the Big 10 or Pac 10. But now, with the way things have developed over the past decade or so with the Big 12, that ship has long passed.

for the longest time it has been reported out here that an open invitation for Texas and Colorado to join the Pac 10 is on the table. Don't know if it still holds true, but that is what is reported every year the expansion of the Pac 10 is brought up.

[Swaggs]

Here is a pretty interesting article, from a few years ago, about the growth of the Big 12 and how poltical things are: Power brokers: How tagalong Baylor, Tech crashed the revolt (http://www.mysanantonio.com/sports/MYSA081405_3N_SWCbaylor_tech_1ca3e1c_html8528.html)

[Galaxy]

I always thought Houston would of been the better fit for the Big 12 over Baylor.

As for the Big Ten, any chance West Virginia or Cincinnati are in the discussion?

Also, I see the PAC 10 has also come out in possible expansion.

[Neuqua]

Hah, I laughed. Go Huskies!

The Pulse - Northern Illinois Football Won’t Join the Big Ten - NYTimes.com (http://www.nytimes.com/2009/12/27/sports/ncaafootball/27cncpulse3.html?_r=2)

The Pulse
Northern Illinois Football Won’t Join the Big Ten
By DAN McGRATH
Published: December 26, 2009

The Northern Illinois football team finished its regular season at 7-5 and will make its second straight bowl appearance. But the Huskies will not be stepping up in esteem, even though the 11-member Big Ten Conference recently announced its intentions to consider adding more teams, splitting into two divisions and playing a lucrative conference championship game.

Northern Illinois and two Big Ten members, Illinois and Northwestern, are the only universities in the state playing football at the major college level. But a Northern Illinois spokesman acknowledged that the Huskies did not have the resources and facilities to compete in the Big Ten or the money to finance a major upgrade.

For the Big Ten, television could be the determining factor for any new teams. Adding Missouri, Pittsburgh or Rutgers would put the conference, which is based in Park Ridge, in another major media market.