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

[RedKingGold]

Originally Posted by tarcone

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

Iowa has a 7-5 advantage over Penn State since Penn State rejoined the Big Ten in 1993.

But, yeah, IOWA HAS SURE OWNED THEM!!!111!!

[tarcone]

Originally Posted by RedKingGold

Iowa has a 7-5 advantage over Penn State since Penn State rejoined the Big Ten in 1993.

But, yeah, IOWA HAS SURE OWNED THEM!!!111!!

Since 1996 Iowa is 7-2 vs Penn State including 6 out of the last 7.

But, yeah, IOWA HAS SURE OWNED THEM!!!111!!

[RedKingGold]

If you want to say you've owned us lately, that would be more correct.

But the overall head-to-head record and historical record disproves this idea that Iowa has a whopping advantage over Penn State.

But feel free to cherry pick the eras that you may want. I can do it too.

WE OWNED YOUR ASS IN 2007

[tarcone]

Originally Posted by RedKingGold

If you want to say you've owned us lately, that would be more correct.

But the overall head-to-head record and historical record disproves this idea that Iowa has a whopping advantage over Penn State.

But feel free to cherry pick the eras that you may want. I can do it too.

WE OWNED YOUR ASS IN 2007

Everyone knows you have crooked refs in Happy Valley.

[tarcone]

So, yes we have owned PsU lately. Like for the last decade.

[Neuqua]

My alma mater, the Northern Illinois Huskies have owned the current BCS Champion Alabama Crimson Tide since 2002.

[Passacaglia]

Man, I love the Big Ten, but this is really killing my interest in it.

[cartman]

Originally Posted by Passacaglia

Man, I love the Big Ten, but this is really killing my interest in it.

Internet rumors are killing your interest in something?

[Passacaglia]

Originally Posted by cartman

Internet rumors are killing your interest in something?

Sorry...this *would* kill my interest.

[Pumpy Tudors]

THIS IS NOT INTERNET RUMORS

THIS IS FROM INSIDERS

[Butter]

If they add a 12th team, Ohio State-Michigan will not be in the same division. You can book that.

Or I mean, I heard from some inside internet rumory trashpress. There.

[Dr. Sak]

Big Ten making overtures to … Texas / LJWorld.com

[cartman]

Here's the response in the local Austin paper:

Texas Longhorns: Football, Basketball, Baseball and more | Statesman.com

[Kodos]

But the Big Ten has already added Pitt, and divided into divisions, per Tarcone!

[Mizzou B-ball fan]

Originally Posted by Dr. Sak

Big Ten making overtures to … Texas / LJWorld.com

The article is from a Lawrence, KS newspaper. 'Nuff said.

[Young Drachma]

That deafening silence you hear from the NYC metro area bodes well to my original theory in all of this. The collective shuffling of feet elsewhere should probably happen for another 8-10 months before the real story comes out. Maybe sooner, but seems unlikely given how it was less than three months ago they decided formally to announce they were going to look into expansion.

Meanwhile, the PAC-10 expansion talk is more interesting, since their most likely candidates aren't schools anyone thinks the PAC-10 would seriously add.

[digamma]

I think the deafening silence from the NYC metro area is reflective of the fact that they don't particularly give a wahoo about college sports.

[Bigsmooth]

Lots of talk around here the last couple days about he Pac 10 expanding to 12 by adding Colorado and Utah. I'm not even speculating here, just thought the talk has been interesting.

[MacroGuru]

Originally Posted by Bigsmooth

Lots of talk around here the last couple days about he Pac 10 expanding to 12 by adding Colorado and Utah. I'm not even speculating here, just thought the talk has been interesting.

Yeah it's been big among the MWC boards and it has circulated through various pubs.

Utah and Colorado to Pac-10 with BYU replacing Colorado in the Big 12 has been the talk/suggestion supposed implications which I find funny.

Sad thing is I think you would see TCU in the Big 12 before BYU.

[Bigsmooth]

Yeah sounds like the LDS angle with BYU scares off the Pac 10. Would be smart for a major conference to add them since they have a wide reaching fan base, given the religion stuff.

[cartman]

Originally Posted by MacroGuru

Sad thing is I think you would see TCU in the Big 12 before BYU.

There is a very strong historical tie between TCU and most of the Big 12 South, from the Southwest Conference days.

[MacroGuru]

Originally Posted by cartman

There is a very strong historical tie between TCU and most of the Big 12 South, from the Southwest Conference days.

Yeah I know...But if this shakeup happened BYU would kind of be the odd man out...although BYU would bring the bigger fanbase to the PAC 10 over the U of U. They always have and always will. The U of U fan base is one of the most fickle fans I have ever seen.

[MacroGuru]

Originally Posted by Bigsmooth

Yeah sounds like the LDS a.ngle with BYU scares off the Pac 10. Would be smart for a major conference to add them since they have a wide reaching fan base, given the religion stuff.

Yeah the no Sunday play is what has them not thinking BYU for the PAC 10

[Swaggs]

I wonder what would happen, division-wise, in the Big 12 if Missouri or Colorado left and TCU joined up. Would TCU play in the North or would there be some shifting with one of the Oklahoma schools.

It seems like it would be wise to put Oklahoma and Texas in different divisions to make the championship game into a marquee matchup (w/ Nebraska having been pretty pedestrian for nearly 10-years now, the Big 12 North is pretty lightweight compared to the South), but I'm not sure it is the wisest of moves to have Oklahoma or Texas have to beat each other twice per season to get to the BCS title game (and it could end up knocking one or the other out of BCS game contention).

[dawgfan]

Originally Posted by MacroGuru

Yeah the no Sunday play is what has them not thinking BYU for the PAC 10

It's more than just that. Nobody in positions of authority will say it directly, but the political stances of the LDS do not jibe well with the leadership of the Pac-10 Universities. In addition, the Pac-10 is very snobby about their status as a collection of upper-tier research institutions, and Utah fits that criteria much better than BYU.

There are a lot of hurdles to clear for the Pac-10 to expand:

- By expanding, can they add enough in terms of TV markets to increase the revenue to each school?
- Can they provide enough incentive to Colorado to leave the Big-12?
- Will the State of Utah allow Utah to join the Pac-10 if they don't also take BYU?
- How would the conference divide itself? Would the NW schools be OK with the likelihood that their annual visits to LA would probably become every other year at most, and the potential impact that could have on recruiting?
- Can the Pac-10 get over their happiness with having longtime rivals as natural pairs? Colorado & Utah do have a history together, but it's been decades since they used to play regularly.
- Can the Pac-10 get over losing their perfect round-robin scheduling for basketball and their current full 9 game in-conference slate in football?

Of course, the Pac-10 also has to ask themselves if they're prepared for the consequences of not doing anything - can they stay relevant as a top-end BCS conference without expanding? The $1B TV deal the SEC signed ups the stakes, and the Pac-10 is falling way behind in revenue to not just the SEC but the Big-12 and Big-10. There's already a national perception problem for the Pac-10, and that could get even worse if revenues continue to trail the rest of the country and the probable result that the conference would start slipping from battling the Big-12 for position as the 2nd best football conference to fighting to stay ahead of the ACC & Big-East.

Like it or not (and the Pac-10 does not like it), the college sports landscape continues to change. With their TV deal up in 2012, now is the time to start deciding if they're going to keep up or get left behind...

[Young Drachma]

I don't think Utah state legislature is as pervasive a bloc as Texas is with the old Big 8 exiles and how they forced the Big 12 to take Baylor. If Utah wants to go, they'll let them go. They'll still schedule the Holy War as a non-conference game and I think in a way, they might see it as a good thing because it gives the state two chances to dominate two conferences rather than standing on top of each other to win. But more importantly, I just can't see them standing in the way of the move...because I think they'll see 1 major conference vs. zero as better than two teams on the way out with no real chance of ever having an opportunity like that again. Who knows, though.

CU is down on their luck right now, but maybe they'll feel like moving to a league that will make them competitive will make them more money in the long term anyway. Meanwhile, if that doesn't induce the MWC to steal Boise State, Nevada, Fresno State and a 4th & 5th team to try to do the 12-team thing, nothing will...

[tarcone]

Originally Posted by Kodos

But the Big Ten has already added Pitt, and divided into divisions, per Tarcone!

Ii did? I did?

[cartman]

Originally Posted by Dark Cloud

I don't think Utah state legislature is as pervasive a bloc as Texas is with the old Big 8 exiles and how they forced the Big 12 to take Baylor.

It really wasn't the legislature per se, as much as it was the sitting Governor (Ann Richards) and more importantly Lieutenant Governor (Bob Bullock) both being Baylor grads. Right now, Gov. Perry (aka Goodhair) is a massive A&M alumni and supporter, so I'd imagine in today's Texas political environment, if anything happens before the fall elections, then A&M would be the new Baylor in any realignment discussions. The current political regime wouldn't give two shits about Baylor or any other Texas school outside of UT-Austin or A&M.

[Young Drachma]

Originally Posted by cartman

It really wasn't the legislature per se, as much as it was the sitting Governor (Ann Richards) and more importantly Lieutenant Governor (Bob Bullock) both being Baylor grads. Right now, Gov. Perry (aka Goodhair) is a massive A&M alumni and supporter, so I'd imagine in today's Texas political environment, if anything happens before the fall elections, then A&M would be the new Baylor in any realignment discussions. The current political regime wouldn't give two shits about Baylor or any other Texas school outside of UT-Austin or A&M.

That makes way more sense.

[cartman]

Originally Posted by Dark Cloud

That makes way more sense.

Yep. Most people don't realize, but in Texas, the Governor is an almost impotent position. The Lieutenant Governor wields a ton more power. They are the one that sets the course for the legislature, and pretty much every thing that happens during the biennial meetings runs through them. The Governor only wields as much power as their cult of personality allows.

As an aside, most of the stuff G.W. Bush claimed during his time as governor was actually the result of actions Bob Bullock took as Lt. Governor.

[Young Drachma]

Originally Posted by cartman

Yep. Most people don't realize, but in Texas, the Governor is an almost impotent position. The Lieutenant Governor wields a ton more power. They are the one that sets the course for the legislature, and pretty much every thing that happens during the biennial meetings runs through them. The Governor only wields as much power as their cult of personality allows.

As an aside, most of the stuff G.W. Bush claimed during his time as governor was actually the result of actions Bob Bullock took as Lt. Governor.

I knew about the weak Governor role of the state and the political quirks from my other work. I just didn't realize Ann Richards and the LtG were both Baylor grads. That sort of political pressure would be hard to beat, especially at that critical time. I'm sure the school was delighted too. I mean, that worked out well for them.

[cartman]

Originally Posted by Dark Cloud

I knew about the weak Governor role of the state and the political quirks from my other work. I just didn't realize Ann Richards and the LtG were both Baylor grads. That sort of political pressure would be hard to beat, especially at that critical time. I'm sure the school was delighted too. I mean, that worked out well for them.

Yep, it did. A funny story that came out of that was when Baylor traveled to Rice while both were in the SWC, but the Big 12 announcement had been made. Rice handed out doormats to all of the Baylor fans that said "Welcome to the Big 12".

[the_meanstrosity]

Originally Posted by Mizzou B-ball fan

The article is from a Lawrence, KS newspaper. 'Nuff said.

Have to agree with MBBF here. The writer, Tom Keegan, is about as big a moron as you can get. He's the editor of the sports department and gets a lot of his information from sports forums. I don't doubt that the Big Ten has talked to Texas because they'd be crazy not to, but I just don't see it happening unless the Big Ten was looking to increase to 14 (add Texas A&M in the mix).

[the_meanstrosity]

Originally Posted by Swaggs

It seems like it would be wise to put Oklahoma and Texas in different divisions to make the championship game into a marquee matchup (w/ Nebraska having been pretty pedestrian for nearly 10-years now, the Big 12 North is pretty lightweight compared to the South), but I'm not sure it is the wisest of moves to have Oklahoma or Texas have to beat each other twice per season to get to the BCS title game (and it could end up knocking one or the other out of BCS game contention).

I know it won't happen, but I'd like to see the conferences either play a complete conference schedule where they play everyone (once in football and twice in basketball) or increase the size of the conference to 14 or 16 where you'd play within your division only until the championship.

[dawgfan]

Originally Posted by Dark Cloud

I don't think Utah state legislature is as pervasive a bloc as Texas is with the old Big 8 exiles and how they forced the Big 12 to take Baylor. If Utah wants to go, they'll let them go. They'll still schedule the Holy War as a non-conference game and I think in a way, they might see it as a good thing because it gives the state two chances to dominate two conferences rather than standing on top of each other to win. But more importantly, I just can't see them standing in the way of the move...because I think they'll see 1 major conference vs. zero as better than two teams on the way out with no real chance of ever having an opportunity like that again. Who knows, though.

Well, given how vocal Orrin Hatch has been about the BCS, I suspect he might take issue with Utah getting an invite but not BYU.

[Chief Rum]

Originally Posted by dawgfan

Well, given how vocal Orrin Hatch has been about the BCS, I suspect he might take issue with Utah getting an invite but not BYU.

I have a feeling, given how vocal Orrin Hatch has been about the BCS, that he won't stand in the way of a Utah school joining a BCS conference, no matter what happens to other schools.

[cartman]

So, supposedly the Big 10 has hired a firm to research 15 possible targets, and Texas isn't one of them.

Big Ten hires firm to research potential expansion candidates - JSOnline

[Logan]

First floated article from B10 country indicating that Rutgers is in the lead...

Rutgers, Big Ten look like a match - chicagotribune.com

The consensus among Big Ten sources, officials from other conferences and TV executives is that Rutgers offers the best package. Missouri is second and Pittsburgh third.

[Lathum]

I would love that. I was born an RU fan and went to many games with my dad during the really bad years. Nothing would thrill me more than taking my dad, now 80 years old, to a sold out RU- osu game at giant stadium.

[molson]

Rutgers is a good choice for a lot of reasons, but I really don't think the NYC market angle is one of them. I don't think the NYC market cares that much about college football, and they're not going to gain huge support just because they move to the Big Ten. If anything, the tougher competition might keep them from a BCS bowl run. The NYC market isn't going to suddenly lose it's shit over 3-5 loss Rutgers teams.

Michigan and Ohio St. coming to town will be nice, but there has hardly been a blip on the local radar when prominent programs have come there over the years. And Rutgers has been bad historically, but not Temple bad.

[Young Drachma]

We've been saying this forever. Rutgers will work, it makes the most sense for a billion reasons and there's no way the Big Ten went into this without a candidate.

When they first floated it a few years ago, that was Rutgers opportunity to get their shit together to make this move plausible. While I doubt they'll become a major player in the world of major sports outside say football and women's basketball, it's a long term decision that will stabilize sports there and so, I really hope it happens.

[Swaggs]

I'd hate for the Big East to lose any team, but if it is one of Rutgers, Pitt, or Syracuse -- I would rather it be Rutgers. As mentioned, I think the NYC market angle is overblown (otherwise, the Big East would have a television contract more in line w/ the other BCS conferences) and Rutgers athletics, overall, are not quite as good as those of Pitt or Syracuse, in my opinion. It would suck to lose the New Jersey market and a longtime rival.

Hopefully, the Big Ten votes to not expand or makes the entrance (combined w/ the exit fee from the Big East) so unattractive that a Big East school will consider sticking around, but I'm guessinng that won't happen b/c if a team like Rutgers passes it up, Pitt or Syracuse may accept.

[molson]

I will say that they've done a good job publicizing their "resurgence", which was capped off by an appearance in the Texas Bowl followed by a series of 4 and 5 loss seasons in a weak conference.

[Young Drachma]

Originally Posted by Swaggs

I'd hate for the Big East to lose any team, but if it is one of Rutgers, Pitt, or Syracuse -- I would rather it be Rutgers. As mentioned, I think the NYC market angle is overblown (otherwise, the Big East would have a television contract more in line w/ the other BCS conferences) and Rutgers athletics, overall, are not quite as good as those of Pitt or Syracuse, in my opinion. It would suck to lose the New Jersey market and a longtime rival.

Hopefully, the Big Ten votes to not expand or makes the entrance (combined w/ the exit fee from the Big East) so unattractive that a Big East school will consider sticking around, but I'm guessinng that won't happen b/c if a team like Rutgers passes it up, Pitt or Syracuse may accept.

I feel like this is the best possible move for the Big East, if a team is going to leave. Rutgers isn't the weak link, but they're not so integral to the league's success that anyone will perceive them going as a net loss for the league in the long-term.

I mean, anyone they get to replace RU as an all sport member (Memphis? UCF?) will probably invest more, have lower academic standards and be generally more committed to succeeding in one of the two major revenue sports if not both and so...I just feel like it's not going to hurt the league in the grand scheme, whereas if Syracuse left or Pitt or a program like that, it'd be a much bigger problem for the league.

My hope is that it would convince them to get that alignment fixed and set the league up into 12 football schools, but even if they don't...I just feel like it's a net positive for Rutgers as an athletic program and a neutral move for the league and long-term, might end up being positive even. I'd love to see them convince UMass to move up. It won't happen, but...at least it'd be a school within the region since Villanova won't move up in football and Delaware won't consider it either.

[Lathum]

Originally Posted by molson

I will say that they've done a good job publicizing their "resurgence", which was capped off by an appearance in the Texas Bowl followed by a series of 4 and 5 loss seasons in a weak conference.

When you factor in the previous 100 years it is a huge resurgence. Don't underestimate the large amount of RU fans in the NY/NJ market that will watch a relevant team. Not to mention the younger generation there now or recently graduated who have now actually grown up with a semblance of winning college football culture.

Trust me, 10-20 years ago you saw zero evidence they even played football at RU, now you see people everywhere in RU football gear, there is much more media coverage and people are excited and talking about gameday.

While they are not on par with traditional powers they are a commodity on the rise.

[ISiddiqui]

And, of course, that is a massive appeal of Rutgers: the huge potential there.

[Marmel]

You Rutgers fans are insane. Your sports program is crap and it has leached off the Big East and contributed nothing for years. You don't do anything in the NY market while in the Big East, so I don't see the annual Rutgers Northwestern/Mich St/Iowa/Indiana football games drawing much either. The OSU/Mich games would be a novelty for a couple of years until your football program once again fades into oblivion for the next 75 years. The only thing NYC cares about Big East basketball, and only a couple of the good Big East teams at that. I want to see the Big East stay intact and frankly, would be happy to get rid of a leach program like Rutgers.

As a Cuse fan I understand a team accepting a Big11 invite for the $$$, but would it ever suck to be subject to Big11 basketball night in and night out. I respect the hell out of MSU in hoops, but they are boring as hell. OSU is the only program that plays anything that resembles real basketball. Losing the games against Pitt, UConn, G'town, WV, Villanova, etc. would be a nightmare.

[the_meanstrosity]

Originally Posted by Lathum

When you factor in the previous 100 years it is a huge resurgence. Don't underestimate the large amount of RU fans in the NY/NJ market that will watch a relevant team. Not to mention the younger generation there now or recently graduated who have now actually grown up with a semblance of winning college football culture.

Trust me, 10-20 years ago you saw zero evidence they even played football at RU, now you see people everywhere in RU football gear, there is much more media coverage and people are excited and talking about gameday.

While they are not on par with traditional powers they are a commodity on the rise.

I would wonder if that "resurgence" would continue if they joined a stronger football conference though. Certainly it would allow them to have a larger budget, but they'd also be going toe to toe with schools that have had a larger budget for years. Would their recruiting improve enough to compete with Big Ten schools year in and year out? I think there are a lot of questions about Rutger's joining the Big Ten, but that's true of any team that joins an established conference like the Big Ten. It will be very interesting to see what the Big Ten finally chooses to do.

[Lathum]

Originally Posted by the_meanstrosity

I would wonder if that "resurgence" would continue if they joined a stronger football conference though. Certainly it would allow them to have a larger budget, but they'd also be going toe to toe with schools that have had a larger budget for years. Would their recruiting improve enough to compete with Big Ten schools year in and year out? I think there are a lot of questions about Rutger's joining the Big Ten, but that's true of any team that joins an established conference like the Big Ten. It will be very interesting to see what the Big Ten finally chooses to do.

I think it would boost recruiting. NJ has a lot of talented football players that in the past have gone out of state to places like Penn St, Nebraska and BC. This would help keep even more players in NJ, plus RU has had a lot of NFL talent come out the past few years ( relatively speaking), so they are getting players, they aren't like a Navy where it is a gimmick.

[miked]

Originally Posted by molson

I will say that they've done a good job publicizing their "resurgence", which was capped off by an appearance in the Texas Bowl followed by a series of 4 and 5 loss seasons in a weak conference.

If you were there when I was (94-98), then you would understand that 8 win seasons are quite a resurgence. We were a 1 or 2 win team every season and didn't even understand that bowl games were possible. And the first bowl they went to was a memorable Insight Bowl and have had fairly decent bowl success. It's not our fault that Big East tie-ins are pure shit for the most part.