Big 10 Expansion Thread -Big Ten ready for a playoff .. finally?
 

Lots of smoke coming from insiders at a ton of Big 10 schools, as well as Pitt. It seems WAY too early for this to be true but some people on a Michigan forum tied in to the AD offices seem to think it might happen very soon.

Dola, if this is true, it'd be effective in 2012 apparently.

insiders

I still can't see this being true, Pitt doesn't fit much of the criteria that the Big 10 seems to be looking for. They won't be expanding into a new market or any of that. That said, it would make sense if they decided to move to 14 teams which is something people have said could be a real possibility.

If this did happen though, the Big East would most assuredly be dead in the water.

I think it would be an excellent choice. Academically, it's a good fit, and that's an important factor. It strengthens existing geographic areas. Travel costs for minor sports were a concern with the other two schools under consideration (Missouri, Rutgers). They were never going to pull off adding Texas or Notre Dame.

I hope they can put it in place by the 2011 football season.

Seems way too soon for that. Internet smoke, much?

I'm assuming so as well but when two different guys who only post info they have a legit source on post it looks like it might happen it causes me to take pause. Now they have been wrong at times in the past but they usually will take the time to explain the situation.

But I agree it seems incredibly soon for this. Who knows though.

You guys think there's any chance the Big East's BCS slot might be taken away if they lost one of their stronger programs?

Maybe, maybe not.

Let's say this happens. The Pac 10 would then be the only "big time" conference without 12 teams and a championship game. There has been talk recently (with a new commish in place) that they might be more open to exploring that than they have in the past.

Why does that matter? Well, if the Big East loses its BCS slot, who gets that spot (assuming they don't just make at an at large)? The natural next choice would seem to be the Mountain West.

But if the Pac 10 now feels heavy pressure to expand, it's almost certain they're going to look at the Mountain West schools first, probably starting with BYU and/or Utah. If they do that, the MWC probably falls below the Big East, which will no doubt pick up a replacement from somewhere for Pitt, and the Big East would keep its BCS slot.

Or the BCS might just make it an at large regardless.

That was the worry after the exodus in 2004. So criteria was set up. So far, the Big East hasn't even come close to losing its slot. Louisville, Connecticut, Cincinnati and South Florida have been assets on the football field.

Eventually, though, they will have to expand and there might be that risk. After kicking Temple out, do they beg them to return? Can Memphis bring up its football program? Marshall? Central Florida? There aren't many candidates.

If this happened, the biggest worry is the domino effect on the other teams. I wouldn't be shocked if the ACC offered two of UConn, Rutgers, WVU and Syracuse. Hell I could see the SEC offered USF and WVU. The Big East losing Pitt can get by, the Big East losing Pitt and possibly two other teams means the death of Big East football.

I thnnik from a football POV East Carolina may be a nice fit for the Big East.

Even though Temple isn't all that great, it'd alleviate the MAC's problem of 13 teams and would be the easiest move to make, especially since they've committed themselves to upgrade their facilities, play at an NFL stadium and so forth.

I think, if a team did leave now -- and it seems unlikely Pitt would leave WVU -- the Big East football conference would probably split from the basketball league, but lease back the name, add 4 new teams to get to 12. Probably UCF, Temple another team from C-USA or the possibility that's been suggested here which might actually work -- poach the two new FCS programs coming online over the next few years from major southern markets. I'm talking Georgia State and UNC-Charlotte.

No, neither of them would be particularly good out of the gate, but both of those schools would never find a better deal, it'd spread the reach of the league a bit and while it'd weaken it somewhat, it might help programs like Louisville rebound faster and keep Cincy and Rutgers ascending, too.

I doubt a conference will lose a bid though, seems with the new process, they'll be assessing some nebulous criteria they won't release and adding a conference to shut folks up.

It would give Penn State a travel partner and an in-state rival, but...I still think the Big 10 stated their intentions a while ago and now they're just throwing up a bunch of smoke before revealing what they were planning to do all along.

Or this. The conference just dissolves and the teams head elsewhere. That'd probably make the most sense. Merging with another conference or something and just effectively killing the whole deal off.

I imagine, no matter what, the Big East folks aren't going to be blindsided this time by a team leaving and that they've got contingency plans in place for whoever decides to bolt.

I agree it's probably all smoke, but if this is true, then it lends credence to the fact that they were adamant on getting the best mix of academics and all around athletics rather then expansion.

I still wouldn't be shocked if Pitt joined the Big 10 that they still didn't keep an open mind to expanding to 14 teams and adding Rutgers and Syracuse or something like that.

Why would the Big 10 want another poor traveling, mediocre football team?

This is Sak's worst nightmare when Pitt beats Penn State. Even if it only happens twice a decade.

JoePa will find someway to get out of playing them the first 10 years of conference play.

Hah I still haven't heard the end of it. But once you bring up the fact that they have had 2 10 win seasons in 28 years and Paterno has 23 victories to their 7 of theirs over PSU, it shuts them up. However I am tired of hearing them say that they could be a top tier team in the Big Ten year in and year out. In basketball yes...in football...keep dreaming.

Pitt beat Penn State one time in their last 8 meetings and they beat arguably the worst Penn State team in Paterno's coaching career by a score of 12-0...not a huge feat by any means. But Pitt really doesn't have much to cheer about when it comes to football.

Utah is a possibility; BYU is not. It would take a monumental shift in conference priorities and attitudes before BYU would be considered for the conference - it's far more likely the Pac-10 will attempt to pry Colorado away from the Big-12 and grab Utah as the 12th team.

Pitt doesn't make any sense. They don't add a state where they can charge 1.10 for the BTN instead of .10, they don't add any kind of tv market. It gets them to twelve, but I doubt it adds more than the conference title game to the coffers, which makes it a net loss.

I'm not too worried about the Big East losing its automatic bid if it only loses one team. With Miami gone, there really isn't one team carrying the league. I am more worried about the Big 10 or ACC deciding that 14 schools is the way to go. That would kill the Big East and probably really kill WVU, as Rutgers, UConn, Syracuse, and Pitt would almost certainly find a home in that scenario.

I'm really hoping that the Big 10 just plucks away one Big 12 team and calls it a day. If the Big 10 grabs Missouri or Nebraska, it won't be a huge loss to the Big 12 (it will be a loss, but not a death blow, by any means) and they can just replace them and keep the 12-school status quo. If the Big 12 decides to go to 14 and only takes one Big East school, I think the ACC will do likewise. So, say the Big 10 goes to 14 and picks up Pitt, Mizzou, and Nebraska -- the ACC will probably go all out for Syracuse, UConn, and Rutgers or (I have heard, if they are willing to up the football program) Villanova. That would leave WVU, Louisville, Cincy, USF, and maybe Rutgers to pick up the pieces and that scenario doesn't sound too appealing.

I think the elephant in the room is what Texas does. The Big 10 could potentially cause a domino effect that would largely destroy both the Big East and Big 12 if it goes to 14 and grabs, say, Texas, Nebraska, and Missouri and then the ACC takes 2 of Pitt, Cuse, UConn, or Rutgers.

I think with all the animosity between Texas and Nebraska left over from the founding of the Big 12, I'd be surprised to see them both leave to the same conference.

Missouri would be potentially damaging to the Big XII's TV contracts. Kansas City and St. Louis are the two largest tv markets outside of Texas, I think.

Well, honestly, Texas probably brings enough to the table that they could probably, if not dictate, give a lot of input as to who else, if any, to bring.

BTW, I haven't heard much about this in the past few days, but last week I had heard that Pitt, along with Rutgers and Missouri had "applied" to the Big 10. Not sure what exactly that entails, but it is not too surprising.

I'm pretty doubtful of this as being anything more than an internet rumor. Pitt's rivals guy hasn't heard anything. I guess we'll know for sure by the end of the week.

Still, I'm split on this move for Pitt - obviously it would be a good move us $$ wise and football wise (better bowl tie ins) but the bball would take a hit. Dixon wasn't too keen on the move when it first was talked about a month or two ago. Pitt's entire recruiting base for Bball is in BE territory (Pa, NJ, NYC, MD/DC/VA) so that would take a hit.

Ideally, the B10 will either take ND or Mizzou and everything can stay status quo w/ the Big East. Still, if it has to be a BE team leaving, I'd hope it was Pitt because Syracuse would be a big loss. If it's Rutgers, then...meh...they can be replaced fairly easily.

Because BYU is a religious school? Or because it would put the conference in only one new (and not large TV market)? I'm familiar with the old arguments. It's why they haven't expanded yet in the past. My suggestion is that were the Big Ten to do this, there would be new pressure on the Pac 10 to adapt--and that means the old rules might be in for some adjusting.

So I'm not so ready to throw out BYU as a potential candidate. I'm not sure how much the old landscape would still be applicable.

I do think Colorado is a possibility, except it's not going to be easy to do that. Competively, Colorado might be for that, but on the books, they may not. With Utah and Colorado, the Pac 10 could negotiate better bowl and TV deals--but they need the better bowl and TV deals to lure Colorado from the Bid 12. Catch 22.

Notre Dame leaving the Big East for the Big 10, on good terms w/ the BE, would probably be the best move overall. It obviously would not hurt the football side of things and it would give the football members and 8 to 7 voting edge, so that the conference could add a 9th football member without having to split or make the conference any larger.

Of course, we all know that Notre Dame will never make that move.

Here are some links to some reports

Pitt to Big Ten? | Campus Corner

Big Ten Sets Sights on Pittsburgh - Jody DiPerna - Fan Overboard - True/Slant


http://bleacherreport.com/articles/3...d-the-panthers

I can't see how Pitt would be a good choice for the Big 10 and I don't think the loss of them kills the Big East by any means. I don't think there's any one team that's holding the Big East together. It certainly hurts, but Pitt's fanbase isn't much better than some C-USA teams; which is why this is an odd choice for the Big 10.

As was mentioned earlier, the worry would be a potential domino effect. If some of the other schools see it as time to bail on the conference then there could be trouble.

For the Big East ECU or UCF probably makes the most sense followed by Memphis if they're serious about improving their facilities and marketing the football program, but Memphis isn't ready right now. I have a hard time seeing Temple coming back. Marshall is struggling to keep up with facilities/revenue in CUSA so they'd be a terrible pick for the Big East at this point.

In the end, if this is the only team leaving then the Big East is fine. They aren't losing their BCS bid over this as no non-BCS conference is really close to the Big East from top to bottom.

Both of those plus the academic argument - BYU is not a major research institution.

The Pac-10 is very traditional, and they will exhaust every resource before compromising their ideals, even if it means sticking with 10 teams.

That's true. After the Big Ten, which is obsessive about international research universities, the Pac Ten is the only conference that seems to care at all. So they would be careful about expansion.

Based on academics, Colorado, Colorado State, Utah and New Mexico are in the top 500 in the world. BYU is in the top 600 (as is Oregon State).

Purely from a football stadium size perspective (and size can usually be increased), there aren't too many BCS schools with stadiums smaller than 50,000. Those include... Big Ten (Northwestern 49), Big 12 (none), SEC (Vanderbilt 39), Pac Ten (Oregon State 45, Washington State 35), ACC (Boston College 44, Duke 33, Wake Forest 31), Big East (Louisville 42, Connecticut 40, Cincinnati 35).

Of the possible Pac Ten schools, Colorado State plays in a stadium with 34,000 capacity, BYU 65, Utah 45, New Mexico 38. For the Big East, UAB (71), Temple plays in the Eagles' stadium (68), Memphis (62), Central Florida (45), East Carolina (43), Marshall (38), Southern Miss (36).

If the Pac 10 is looking to upgrade its bowl ties (which are pretty mediocre after the Rose Bowl, IMO), then BYU probably has the best travelling fan base and brings the most TV viewers of the non-BCS teams.

Hmm. If it is Pittsburgh, what would be the split? East/West? North/South? An ACC-style "ignore geography" split?

East/West probably would split up the Indiana schools in some way with one school going east with Michigan, MSU, PSU, Pitt, and OSU.

North/South (if taken literally) would most likely split Northwestern from Illlinois to go north with Michigan, MSU, Iowa, Wisconsin, and Minnesota.

Crossover games could be used to keep Indiana/Purdue (in an east/west split), Michigan/OSU, or Illinois/Northwestern (both in a possible north/south split) together, but after them, it's hard to pick meaningful permanent crossover games.

If geography were put aside, an arrangement like the following could be done:
Division A: Michigan, Ohio State, Pittsburgh, Minnesota, Iowa, Indiana
Division B: Michigan State, Illinois, Penn State, Wisconsin, Northwestern, Purdue

The best crossover fits seem to be Michigan-MSU, OSU-Illinois, Pittsburgh-Penn State, Minnesota-Wisconsin, Indiana-Purdue, and Iowa-Northwestern. Depending on whether the Big 10 would like to keep Michigan-OSU as a possible rematch game after the regular season (and thus split them into separate divisions), this could be a good way to preserve as many rivalries and trophy games as possible.

Lots of NFL stadiums in the Big 10 footprint to hold a champioship game in: Heinz Field, Paul Brown Stadium, Browns Stadium, Lucas Oil Stadium, Ford Field, Soldier Field, Lambeau Field, and the Metrodome. Of these, probably Soldier Field and Lucas Oil Stadium, being centrally located and easily accessible, would host the championship more often than other places more to the edge of the conference footprint (and I doubt the Packers would put Lambeau up for bid).

Like I said--new pressures. Nothing goes as far as money. If the Pac 10 thinks they're going to get squeezed out of any big time BCS money, they'll sacrifice whatever to get that 12th team.

They added the Alamo starting next year, so a second Jan 1st and later bowl game (finally). Didn't lose the bigger ones they already had (Holiday, Sun) or the next teir they have (Vegas, Emerald). So they are improving a little.

Still got room to get better there, though.

The only group interested in moving Missouri to the Big 10 is Missouri. They wouldn't add much to the Big 10 aside from St. Louis. KC is one of the Big 12's hub cities and a lot of that is because of Kansas, Missouri, KSU, Nebraska, etc. So if Missouri were to leave KC would still have a vested interest in the Big 12 because of the Kansas, Nebraska, Kansas State, etc fans in the area.

The thing that nobody talks about is that for all of Missouri's complaining about the Big 12 they were one of the key voters who voted a clown like Steve Hatchell to the Big 12 commissioner role in the first place. The guy sunk the Southwest Conference and yet some how he was nominated to be the Big 12 commissioner? It's been down hill since then. I'm hoping one day the Big 12 will actually hire a competent commissioner.

It would just be about gaining a foothold of some sort in Kansas City. Though, for reference, Kansas is almost a suburb, and Kansas State and Missouri are both almost two hours away.

It's hard to find schools that could be part of a major conference.

There are much better cities to get a foothold in than Kansas City. I love Kansas City as much as anybody, but I highly doubt that was one of their big reasons to expand, lol. Syracuse would make better sense if you're wanting a foothold in a major city. Texas would obviously make the best sense, but that wasn't likely to happen. I even saw rumors of the Big Ten looking to add three teams (Nebraska, Kansas, and Missouri) to go to 14. That one made no sense at all IMHO. If you're going to add three then why not Texas, Texas A&M, and one more?

This is the second time where Missouri has all but begged to be let into the Big Ten and weren't invited. This instance was actually worse as they publically proclaimed their interest and criticized the Big 12. Not that the Big 12 shouldn't be criticized, but it's a bit false coming from Missouri given they have sided with the south schools from the beginning and thus they made their bed and should lie in it.

The Big 12 has a great opportunity in the very near future to put themselves into position to be one of the top three conferences in the country. Their next tv contract is going to be looked at very closely given the recent deals of the Big Ten and SEC. I honestly don't have a lot of faith in the current Big 12 leadership, but I'm hoping even they can't screw this up.

With a 12th team, what site would get the Big 10 Championship game? My guess is Indy, although it would suck to have both the basketball and football there.

Why not Soldier Field? Or whatever they call the Spaceship Stadium now? Or maybe the new place the Lions play? There are a couple other spots I think they could go.

New Meadowlands Stadium when Rutgers joins, not Pitt. :)

I still don't understand the appeal of PIT...

1. Mizzou's board has NOT asked to be invited to the Big 10. That's simply false. The governor has openly said that he'd like to see Mizzou go to the B10, but the board and the AD are both against it.

2. Mizzou has actually benefitted from the current deal due to the structure that rewards TV appearances and results. Mizzou has received more over the last 5 years than they would have if all revenues were split equally over that same time.

3. The current Big 12 financial income is peanuts compared to the Big 10. The pot to be divided in the Big 12 is around $500M. The pot to be divided by the Big 10 schools is $2.6 billion. It's not even remotely close.

I did chat with a couple of people in the Mizzou AD and they mentioned that a Big 12 Network in some form is a strong possibility in the next TV deal. We'll see if that happens.

In doing some reading, the move to 12 makes sense for the Big 10 if they want to have a conference championship. If it brings in an extra $10-15M + some extra television sets, it will essentially pay for a new team. Adding 3 more teams doesn't do a whole lot for the Big 10 unless they swing for the fences and hit a home run (add Texas, Notre Dame, and someone else) or somehow get the BCS to begin permitting 3 teams per conference, as the Big 10 would already have a championship game w/ 12-teams and it already gets 2 BCS games almost every year.

I'm half wondering if this (the threat to move to 14, rather than 12) is the Big 10's final offer to Notre Dame -- essentially telling them that, if we take 2-3 Big East teams, that conference is going to split and you are going to be left looking for a new home for all sports and we won't have room for you at that point.

Just don't see the value Pitt adds.

I see it athletically, both football and basketball. I see it academically. I see it geographically/culturally.

I just don't see it financially. They have to add a big metro area cable system for this to make sense, no? And doesn't Penn St. already have the Big 10 network on the cable systems in Pittsburgh, a small tv market to begin with?

It brings a natural rival and an eastern partner to Penn State. If you are looking at TV market alone, really only Syracuse or Rutgers could bring in a new market there.

What I keep asking Pitt fans is how do they feel moving from probably the best (or top 2) basketball conference to the Big Ten?

Right, so you agree this does not make sense financially for the Big 10?

Unless they head out west to get a team or somehow pull Texas/Notre Dame, I don't think any of the schools in the Big East make sense financially. But the Big Ten NEEDS that 12th team.

Why? So each school gets less money?

And if they got any team that forced NYC cable systems to add the B10 network, that would make sense financially. Plus, Rutgers easily meets the other criteria you list as pluses for Pitt, and Syracuse stretches to them.

I am not entirely convinced that Rutgers or Syracuse forces the network on the basic cable tier - more likely on a sports tier. The only team that forces it to the main tier is Notre Dame.

But, a school that would have some tv interest in NYC has to make more sense than Pitt.

Considering that these same reports came out about a month ago with Syracuse as the selected target, I am skeptical as to this being a done deal.

While you can argue whether Pitt is the best choice, there's little question that having a conference championship game in football would benefit the Big 10 financially. I don't think it's a guarantee that the schools would see a drop in revenue.

Big 10 schools get 21 million paid out. A conference championship game would add 10-15. That's a net loss for the existing schools.

EDIT: Even if the championship game added 21 million, there's still no benefit to adding another team, just a break even. They really need to add subscriber fees.

If the Big 10 moves to 12-teams, pretty much regardless of who it is, they will be able to have a championship game and likely add close to enough money from that game to feed the extra mouth. I agree that Pitt doesn't make a ton of sense from a television standpoint, but they are probably the best academic fit (probably even moreso than Texas or Notre Dame) and that seems to matter to most of the B10 schools.

I don't buy for a minute that anyone in the Big 10, outside of State College, cares about giving Penn State a natural rival.

But you're not factoring in any revenue from the increase in number of basketball and football games during the regular season. These people aren't stupid. They're not going to add a team if it means a net loss for everyone else. There's plenty of revenue to be had and I have little doubt that all schools will end up making more rather than less.

The MU chancellor has publicly stated they would listen to the Big Ten if an offer was made. That doesn't mean they would definitely go, but they certainly aren't against it as you are suggesting. I'd go far as to suggest Missouri would be stupid not to go if offered given the television contracts. Granted the Big 12 should get a nice little raise on their next contract, but they'll still be behind the Big Ten.

You're correct that Missouri is doing well in the Big 12 when it comes to football revenue currently, but that's not the problem as Mike Alden suggested. The problem is that you're making a lot less than other schools in the Big Ten and SEC. And the biggest reason for that is because the Big 12 as a whole can't get on the same page with regards to revenue sharing. If everyone could get on the same page then they'd be able to finally lock into a long term deal/plan (tv contract or Big 12 network). Everyone in the Big 12 is so afraid to commit to a long term deal right now because they're afraid that the have's will just get a bigger portion of the larger deal leaving the have nots left behind. Right now the disparity is only a few million. With a larger deal it could be a much bigger disparity unless they learn to share.

I do think we'll eventually see a Big 12 network unless some channel just throws out tons and tons of money. I've even heard it suggested we could go into network partnership with a conference such as the Pac 10 which would make some sense given the time zone difference. I don't know how feasible that is, but it's something they are looking at per the Big 12 commissioner.

I don't think there would be an increase in revenue from having more football games. The extra game every Saturday would end up on the Big 10 network. The big money from that is subscriber revenues - which don't go up from having more games. The additional ad money from the 4th game on that network would be minimal. Plus, we've seen in the past that adding games itself does not increase revenue unless you increase the number viewers total watching the conferences games every week.

While Pitt will certainly add some viewers, it seems to me they will add the least of all of the rumored candidates. While the move may end up being a small net increase in revenue, it seems to me that it would be the smallest net increase they could have. It just does not make sense to me.

But, I suppose if it makes sense to them, that's what matters.

I would also think Rutgers is more attractive than Pitt for the potential revenues that the school could add. They would immediately bring in more money than Pitt and Cuse because of NYC, and that could really grow bigger if the program gets closer to top level. Immediately though, a Rutgers-Michigan matchup would put up a huge NYC number.

I can 100% GUARANTEE you that they are totally against it and are using it as little more than a playing card against the B12 South teams. It's as simple as that. I'd note that I don't think it's nearly as powerful a playing card as the higher-ups think it might be due to the transparency of the move (i.e a moron could figure out what they're doing). But it never hurts to try.

I don't think that means what you think it means.

I'll clarify. There is no way that Mizzou will be filling that 12th spot in the Big 10. It's not going to happen. That mean what you thought it meant? :)

Probably bears noting somewhere here that the Big 10 Network already has clearance in NYC on Cablevision, Comcast, and Time Warner.

Of the top 20 markets, the only one that doesn't have clearance on traditional cable (as opposed to Fios or U-Verse) appears to be Los Angeles. The next largest market where that's the case? #21 St. Louis
http://www.bigtennetwork.com/corporate/FAQ.asp#14

The war of rumors has gone to Twitter..........

Pitt Official Derides Internet Speculation on Pitt to Big Tent | Campus Corner

I'd love to have it in Chicago. I used to go to the Big 10 Tournament when it was at the United Center.

Few reasons why I doubt it would be at Soldier Field. It's outdoors and potentially cold as shit. The field is typically torn to shreds by that time of year thanks to high school games and concerts. Soldier Field is really not that easily accessible for the public and not a great gathering place. And finally, college sports doesn't generate a ton of buzz in the city and it would be well behind the Bears and perhaps Blackhawks and Bulls in coverage.

Only way I can see it happening is if they laid down some turf on the field (which a lot of people have been pushing for). Otherwise, I think they like the location of Indianapolis and the fact it'll be indoors. Detroit is an option but who the hell wants to go there for a weekend.

You must feel 100% certain that they will not be getting an invitation, then. There is no way that a school like Missouri is in a position to say no to the Big 10 or SEC, if they are offered.

I really don't see these rumors being true right now. Chris Peak of Pitt's rivals site is quite adamant that all of his sources point to this being bunk. Also, this guy sees it the same way: ZagsBlog.com – Pitt to Big 10 Rumors False

Not saying it won't happen down the road, but it seems highly doubtful that anything goes down this week (or month). Wouldn't mind being wrong, but I doubt it.

EDIT: Pitt football's beat writer for the Post Gazette Paul Zeise chimed in as well (saying all the rumors aren't true): http://community.post-gazette.com/bl...e-big-ten.aspx

Part of me feels like this whole B10 expansion thing has been in the works behind the scenes for a bit, that they already knew who they're adding and it's just a formality to announce the plans to consider studying expansion.

It'll seem homeresque of me, but it's not because of the Jersey thing with Rutgers, as much as it's understanding the mechanics of higher ed. Rutgers, even in the face of some significant budget cuts in other areas, didn't slow plans to grow their football program in recent years.

They've been consistent with their success, have given Schiano anything he's wanted to ensure he's not tempted to leave and the stadium capacity of 52k puts it in a respectable size nationally.

Anyway, the more this plays out -- and I thought this from the outset -- the more it seems to me that they knew this was going to happen and they've been doing the work behind the scenes to get prepared for the move to the B10 from the time it was first floated back a few years ago, than say, some sort of "thoughtful" process where a few schools do the show pony to determine who'll get tapped for B10 expansion.

That's all just random speculation in my head, not anything scientific, but...I just feel like if there wasn't some larger plan in mind beyond "being considered a respectable player on the Big East scene" that the school would've scaled back its plans at some point or caved to the considerable faculty (and some state) pressure to focus less on increase the football program's footprint.

I guess we'll see, though.

I also kind of wondered if the reason Schiano has been so adamant about staying at Rutgers is because he knew something was in the works to get them into the Big 10.

I guess one of the things that would turn me away from Rutgers being added is that it is a long trip for some of the smaller sports. Not a big deal for the football team but when Minnesota or Iowa have to send the Women's Field Hockey team out to New Jersey, that has a cost.

Adding to the Rutgers argument: the new WR coach has recruiting ties to Illinois and other midwest states...

You guys obviously didnt look at the links I posted. Most questions are answered.
What will the conference look like?
Eastern Division

* Michigan
* Michigan State
* Northwestern
* Ohio State
* Penn State
* 12th Member (Pitt, Syracuse, or Rutgers)

Western Division

* Illinois
* Indiana
* Iowa
* Minnesota
* Purdue
* Wisconsin

Where will the championship game be played?

Lucas Oil Stadium. Its new and indoors.

One of those divisions does not look like the other.

Meh. Google the UAA conference. It's a D3 conference that contains Wash U and a bunch of other big endowment D3 schools that could easily afford D1 if they wanted to, but don't want the sacrifice of academic standards to do it. If they can travel the way they do (NYU, Brandeis, Carnegie Mellon, U Chicago, et. al.) then having trips to Rutgers once or maybe twice a season is of no real consequence.

Not sure how links to the original posting of the rumors, that has questions answered with the author of the rumors suppositions, is supposed to convince everyone this is a done deal?

No one in the ACC complained about having to trek up to Boston College, or the Big East going all the way across to Louisville or down to USF (I know the remaining BE members had less room to be stingy, but still).

I guess I figure they know more then me. And the fact that Pitt student-athletes were twittering about it. This was reported on these sites. My main point was several statements were made and questions asked and this kind of answered them.

I am hearing rumblings of the Big 10 adding 3 teams. Pitt, Syracuse and Missouri top the list.

Heck, if student-athletes would be the absolutely LAST people to know. If they're talking about it, you know it's just rampant silliness and speculation, rather than actual facts. Coaches too. They'd find out JUST before the students.

Umm ... I'd say that's always been somewhat unpopular with the core ACC fans & I've never gotten the impression it was particularly popular with the athletic departments either but since there wasn't jackshit they could do about it no real point in complaining.

It's a funny thing I guess, having FSU probably helped Miami integrate into the ACC somewhat & they at least now feel (to other schools/fans) a little bit like they're in the ACC but I don't know that BC will ever feel like they're actually part of the conference. They certainly never have to me & I don't know that I've ever run across anyone from any school that took particular interest in playing them. That's not BC's fault & I'm not knocking them about it, I doubt they/their fans get real excited about the marriage of convenience either.

I was talking about at the time of the movement, and I specifically remember the ADs/Presidents saying how travel costs didn't figure to be an issue when they were asked about it. But you're right, I know BC fans who weren't thrilled by the move at the onset even though they knew it would be better overall for the program because of the loss of natural rivals. Even more don't like it now.

Louisville is right by UC anyway? Next state over from Pitt and WVU? Why would they complain about that?

Louisville came into the league with Cincy.

It looks like it's about 550 miles between Louisville and Morgantown which is a hell of a trip for the men's swimming team or whatever non-revenue sports you're talking about. It's 700+ miles between Louisville and New Brunswick, NJ.

Back to the original discussion, the point is you're going to have geographic outliers in these conferences just like Miami was in the Big East originally and people dealt with it fine.

Different era though.

Here's one of several articles (ranging from sports business journals to NPR) that talks about the increasing concern over rising travel costs. More recently that report (Knight Foundation? Knight Commission? the name escapes me now that I'm typing) that tried to focus attention on the rise in coaching salaries also included mention of 60% of NCAA members supporting a look at mandating reduced schedules for non-revenue sports due to travel costs.
http://www.ncaa.org/wps/portal/ncaah...08+-+NCAA+News

Better late than never I guess. I just wonder why Missouri took so long to re-join their Big 12 north brethren. Colorado and Missouri were the two Big 12 north schools who voted with the Big 12 south for the commissioner and other votes during the Big 12's early years. Glad to have Missouri finally back in the fold.

I'm with Abe. Those divisions look really lopsided. Northwestern has to be wondering what they did to anger the Big Ten gods.

No way in hell Michigan, OSU and PSU all end up on the same side of the conference.

I would swap Michigan and Michigan State with Indiana and Purdue.

But then Iowa wouldn't have a cakewalk to the conference championship game.

As soon as this is implemented, there will be a Title IX lawsuit somewhere.

Not important. What is important is whether this will be implemented in TCY2.

You cant have the last game of the Big Ten season being Michigan/Ohio St. Then turn around and have them play again a week later in the championship game. That makes less sense then putting them in the same division.

And Iowa wouldnt have a cake walk. Wisconsin is routinely one of the better teams in the land.

And look at the Big 12. Seems OU and Texas are in the South together. I wouldnt think that would be possible.

were the insiders right or what

Feb 4th is the day it is to be announced

According to who?

IMO, you have to split up OSU and UM. And then hopefully get a team on par with PSU to come in and pair off. That way, you have a good shot of the traditional OSU vs. UM showdown for the conference title.

But Michigan and Ohio St wont give up a rivalry game that pours millions of dollars into each university. And it would be stupid for the Big Ten to expand and split those 2 up if they play a week before a conference championship game. That just makes the conference championship game redundant.

The Interwebs. C'mon man, follow along will ya?


:D

They are not going to put Penn State, Ohio State, and Michigan in the same side of the conference. Between the 3 of them they won 70% of the titles last decade, plus they are probably the 3 highest TV drawers in the conference.

Love the passion man...but get a reality grip.

I know geography tends to dictate divisions, but in the Big Ten's case, why bother? The conference is used to traveling to all the other teams already. Why not just split the teams up in as even a manner as possible and be done with it.

Kick Ass Division

OSU
Mich
Mich St.
Purdue
Iowa
Indiana

Take Names Division

Penn St
Pitt
Wisconsin
Northwestern
Minnesota
Illinois

You can switch around teams some if need be. The point is that geography shouldn't limit competitive balance when distances traveled aren't going to change from the status quo.

Heh.

Trashpress.

How else do you break it up? The only logical thing is to put PSU in the West. But then you have to put their travel partner in the West. So you have PSU and Pitt (or Syr or Rut) in the West with Iowa, Minnesota, Wisconsin, and Illinois.
This makes more sense?

This makes sense to me. But I would love to see Iowa with Penn st. since we own them. :D