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

[Swaggs]

I'd probably bump LSU up to the Kings, and drop Colorado, UCLA, and Washington down a tier to Knights (if we are giving weight to basketball, UCLA stays where they are). Probably jump Oregon up into the Barons, too.

[JonInMiddleGA]

Originally Posted by Swaggs

I'd probably bump LSU up to the Kings, and drop Colorado, UCLA, and Washington down a tier to Knights (if we are giving weight to basketball, UCLA stays where they are). Probably jump Oregon up into the Barons, too.

Vols down to Barons was the first & most obvious one to me, LSU up to Kings was next.

[digamma]

Originally Posted by JonInMiddleGA

Interesting, four years old but darned if I don't think it's still pretty close to accurate. A few of the 3rd tier have slipped, a few of the 4th tier have climbed, very little movement in the upper two.

I thought Tier 2 was where there was the most movement...though it is also the tier where I think there were the most mistakes initially. Colorado, Clemson, UCLA and Washington weren't top 20 programs 4 years ago and they aren't today.

[JonInMiddleGA]

Originally Posted by digamma

I thought Tier 2 was where there was the most movement...though it is also the tier where I think there were the most mistakes initially. Colorado, Clemson, UCLA and Washington weren't top 20 programs 4 years ago and they aren't today.

Hmm ... looking at those again specifically, I'd probably have downgraded Colorado based on the same reasoning that I about UVA and Arkansas earlier, the other three don't bother me too much.

I think the real telling thing about that list is how large the gap between Tier 1 and everybody else - regardless of whether their 2nd tier or 3rd tier - really is. Whether (since they were kind of what brought this up I think) Mizzou is #18 or #35, they're still light years from being one of the truly elite, something that can be said about more virtually everyone else as well.

[Mizzou B-ball fan]

Someone had mentioned a list of all time programs. Here's a pretty good statistical analysis at Basketball Reference for college.

CBB: The Top 31 College Basketball Programs of the Last 31 Years (Part I) » Basketball-Reference.com Blog » Blog Archive

I doubt Mizzou would hold a spot in a similar overall ranking in football obviously, but the football program is much stronger over the last 6-7 years which is a pretty good stretch for a program.

[albionmoonlight]

I've thought that a good way to measure prestige in college sports text sims would be with a two-tiered system: Deep Prestige and Shallow Prestige.

Deep Prestige moves slowly. It can and does go up and down, but it takes more than a couple good or bad years to do it. It operates on a longer time scale and is a much stickier rating.

Shallow Prestige is much more of the "what have you done for me lately" rating. It is volatile and goes up and down quickly.

And then recruits will each have give a slightly different weight to those ratings when factoring in prestige.

The ratings, of course, are not in conflict. A lot of schools with good Deep Prestige will spend a lot of time with high Shallow Prestige, too.

[Toddzilla]

Originally Posted by JonInMiddleGA

You're saying that Arkansas & Virginia are 4* close to 5* prestige? In FOOTBALL?

[Chief Rum]

Originally Posted by SackAttack

However you feel about MBBF, you can't deny that Mizzou got straight screwed on that Orange Bowl fiasco.

There was no good reason Mizzou should've gotten jumped by Kansas just because OU knocked Mizzou out of the national title game.

Sure there was. Mangino threatened to eat anyone who kept Kansas out. The whole midwest was in a grip of fear for days.

[sterlingice]

Originally Posted by Chief Rum

Sure there was. Mangino threatened to eat anyone who kept Kansas out. The whole midwest was in a grip of fear for days.

It was winter. He was hungry. What did you expect?

SI

[digamma]

Originally Posted by JonInMiddleGA

I think the real telling thing about that list is how large the gap between Tier 1 and everybody else - regardless of whether their 2nd tier or 3rd tier - really is. Whether (since they were kind of what brought this up I think) Mizzou is #18 or #35, they're still light years from being one of the truly elite, something that can be said about more virtually everyone else as well.

Yes, you'll get no argument from me there.

[dawgfan]

Originally Posted by digamma

I thought Tier 2 was where there was the most movement...though it is also the tier where I think there were the most mistakes initially. Colorado, Clemson, UCLA and Washington weren't top 20 programs 4 years ago and they aren't today.

Regarding Washington (and the same factors might hold true for the others as well), we have to have some idea of what's being measured - current clout? All-time historical place? Something in between?

Washington wasn't a top-20 team 4 years ago, and they probably aren't now. But historically they are, and when they aren't being run by the worst coach in their history, they are a program that should annually compete for the Pac-12 championship and every once in a while a National Championship.

In the late '90's, would you have said Oklahoma is not a top-10 football program? My point being, what exactly are you trying to measure - short-term recent on-field success, or something with a longer view?

[tarcone]

I would say Iowa belongs in the Baron category.

[tarcone]

I agree that there is a wide spread in college football. It takes the great programs getting caught cheating to affect their status. Other schools are more likely to go through bad times, cheating or not. And thus move between Barons and Knights and the last tier. The "Kings" will always be up there. It takes a few years for the NCAA investigators to go away, then its business as usual.

[Buccaneer]

Originally Posted by tarcone

I would say Iowa belongs in the Baron category.

Of course you do.

[BishopMVP]

Originally Posted by tarcone

I agree that there is a wide spread in college football. It takes the great programs getting caught cheating to affect their status. Other schools are more likely to go through bad times, cheating or not. And thus move between Barons and Knights and the last tier. The "Kings" will always be up there. It takes a few years for the NCAA investigators to go away, then its business as usual.

Last couple teams to graduate to "Kings" status (without having been there before like USC and Oklahoma) would have to be whom - FSU mid '70's and Miami early 80's? And both of those can be tied to huge shifts in population/recruiting demographics. (I'd love to see something like this - BCS Recruits by State, 2004-08 - NCAA Football - SI.com - for the 1960s for example.) Based off that and population growth trends, schools like Rutgers, UCLA, maybe one of the Arizona's or Maryland if you include DC in their mix, and a 2nd Texas school (TCU?) could be the next in line. Wisconsin and Iowa I don't think are sustainable, and I don't know if Nebraska has enough prestige to overcome its faults either.

[RedKingGold]

I say this as a fan, but do we think about dropping Penn State from "Kings" status? To be fair, the team has not really competed for a national title since 1999 (the LaVar Arrington/Courtney Brown year).

[cuervo72]

Yeah, but record-wise they were been pretty good from 2005-2009. 11 wins three of those seasons, two conference titles. Down Big 10 or not, that's pretty good.

Was 'Bama considered dropped from the list pre-Saban?

[tarcone]

Interesting thoughts there, Bishop.

As for the 3 B1G teams you mentioned, I dont believe Iowa or Wisky can get to the Kings. You are right about sustainability. I think Wisky and Iowa will be good and Baron worthy as long ae their respective coaches stay at their schools.
Nebraska may have settled on their coach.
In the 70s and 80s Nebraska won because of all the walk ons they had. They would get some huge kids to come and play and then ran behind them. They also have a Community college in Iowa that feeds them. I believe they were the 1st to do this. They would take their non-qualifiers and put them in CC until they were ready for Nebraska. A great idea. I dont think Nebraska will maintain a superior level for long. Although if the go to the Rose this year, I retract my statements.

[panerd]

Maybe I am misunderstanding this also but I don't even see Boise State or Utah or TCU on there. How are they not at the level of Iowa State or Northwestern? Even including basketball those programs still don't bring much to the table.

RE: Iowa... Tarcone take off the gold glasses buddy. I feel the same way about Mizzou as you do about Iowa but there isn't a logical reason to put either above where they are.

[Logan]

Originally Posted by panerd

Maybe I am misunderstanding this also but I don't even see Boise State or Utah or TCU on there. How are they not at the level of Iowa State or Northwestern? Even including basketball those programs still don't bring much to the table.

RE: Iowa... Tarcone take off the gold glasses buddy. I feel the same way about Mizzou as you do about Iowa but there isn't a logical reason to put either above where they are.

The original article from Mandel was breaking down BCS conference teams.

[panerd]

Originally Posted by Logan

The original article from Mandel was breaking down BCS conference teams.

Got it. I might think about putting Boise up at least in tier 3 if not higher if he were to rewrite. That team has won more BCS bowls than all of tier 4 combined I think.

[Dr. Sak]

Originally Posted by RedKingGold

I say this as a fan, but do we think about dropping Penn State from "Kings" status? To be fair, the team has not really competed for a national title since 1999 (the LaVar Arrington/Courtney Brown year).

The Orange Bowl year if they had not lost the heartbreaker to Michigan (damn you Manningham) there is/was talk they could have contended for #2 that year. Also a few years later they were a last second field goal from being undefeated going into the bowl game.

[tarcone]

85-41 was Iowas record from 2001 to present. That included back to back 6 win seasons where Ferentz took on some suspect character guys.
6-3 in Bowl games.
1-1 in BCS games.
Won 2 conference titles.

This seems a little better then a Knight.

88-41 was Wiskys racord during that time.
0-1 in BCS games
1 conference title

45-76 was Washingtons record.
60-66 was Colorados record.
76-51 was Clemsons record. 0-1 in ACC Championships.

I'll stop here. Im just not sure what the criteria of this list was.


Found a great site. Every game of every team listed. From the beginning of their program to present.

Historical Scores - Alphabetically by Team

[tarcone]

Originally Posted by Dr. Sak

The Orange Bowl year if they had not lost the heartbreaker to Michigan (damn you Manningham) there is/was talk they could have contended for #2 that year. Also a few years later they were a last second field goal from being undefeated going into the bowl game.

And that pesky Iowa team they just cant seem to beat (1-8 vs. Ferentz)

[JonInMiddleGA]

Originally Posted by tarcone

This seems a little better then a Knight.

You're leaving out the "does anybody outside the home state give a fuck about them" factor or more politely "does the team have a national profile" factor.

Let's also not forget about the "when someone mentions the school, how long before football comes to mind" factor. That list of King's make this aspect pretty clear to me. A couple of the Barons are kind of iffy on this part I think but still at least arguable.

[RedKingGold]

Originally Posted by JonInMiddleGA

You're leaving out the "does anybody outside the home state give a fuck about them" factor or more politely "does the team have a national profile" factor.

Let's also not forget about the "when someone mentions the school, how long before football comes to mind" factor. That list of King's make this aspect pretty clear to me. A couple of the Barons are kind of iffy on this part I think but still at least arguable.

Or an even better test, name the last three-to-five quarterbacks who started at that school. I'm no fan of the SEC or PAC-10, let alone live and die with individual teams in each conference. Yet, I can easily name the last three starting quarterbacks for USC, Florida, Alabama, Oklahoma, Texas, etc.

I couldn't tell you who started for Iowa last year, let alone five years ago.

[Matthean]

Originally Posted by JonInMiddleGA

You're leaving out the "does anybody outside the home state give a fuck about them" factor or more politely "does the team have a national profile" factor.

Let's also not forget about the "when someone mentions the school, how long before football comes to mind" factor. That list of King's make this aspect pretty clear to me. A couple of the Barons are kind of iffy on this part I think but still at least arguable.

I do think them and Wisconsin are rather close. This gets a little quirky with the expansion teams being added, but if Iowa got bumped up one, you would have 6 teams in the top two tiers. I think Penn State at this point is there due to Papa Joe. Once he leaves and we see where they go as a program then they might fall down if for no other reason being a standout team in the Big Ten is getting harder and harder.

[kcchief19]

Originally Posted by JonInMiddleGA

You're saying that Arkansas & Virginia are 4* close to 5* prestige? In FOOTBALL?

I mean, if that's where you say Mizzou is and those are your peers ... I gotta be misreading that somehow, right? Arkansas hasn't won a major bowl game since 1999 & UVA has only 1 winning season in the last 5 years and hasn't won a notable bowl since the Peach in 1995 (kids born that night already have their learner's permits)

Either I'm not following you or the EA Sports prestige system is more fucked up than I realized.

In speaking of Mizzou's prestige, I recognize that averaging 10 wins a year for 5 years doesnt erase 20 years of futility. UVA and Arkansas were better than MU for a while ... And don't forget MU and UA met in the Cotton Bowl in '07, although we did blow them away.

But in terms of good teams that produce NFL players and first round picks but haven't made a BCS bowl recently, they are in the same group. I think Mizzou is on the rise and the others aren't.

And yes, EA's prestige ratings are f-ed up.

[britrock88]

Originally Posted by RedKingGold

Or an even better test, name the last three-to-five quarterbacks who started at that school. I'm no fan of the SEC or PAC-10, let alone live and die with individual teams in each conference. Yet, I can easily name the last three starting quarterbacks for USC, Florida, Alabama, Oklahoma, Texas, etc.

I couldn't tell you who started for Iowa last year, let alone five years ago.

HOW CAN YOU FORGET RICKY STANZI?!?!? THAT'S AS BAD AS FORGETTING THAT YOU'RE AN AMERICAN!

[dawgfan]

Originally Posted by tarcone

85-41 was Iowas record from 2001 to present. That included back to back 6 win seasons where Ferentz took on some suspect character guys.
6-3 in Bowl games.
1-1 in BCS games.
Won 2 conference titles.

This seems a little better then a Knight.

88-41 was Wiskys racord during that time.
0-1 in BCS games
1 conference title

45-76 was Washingtons record.
60-66 was Colorados record.
76-51 was Clemsons record. 0-1 in ACC Championships.

I'll stop here. Im just not sure what the criteria of this list was.

Well, pretty obviously he was looking beyond recent results and taking a longer historical view. He was also probably figuring what basic advantages & disadvantages each program has.

That 10 year stretch for Washington happens to be the worst 10 year stretch they've ever had, and while it's too early to know for sure, it looks like Sark has the program returning back to being what they've usually been - a consistent winner.

[Matthean]

For kicks and giggles. Michigan since 2001 is 79-46, 2-6 in bowls, no BCS wins, 2 Big Ten titles with one split, and one national title since 1948.

[sterlingice]

Originally Posted by RedKingGold

Or an even better test, name the last three-to-five quarterbacks who started at that school. I'm no fan of the SEC or PAC-10, let alone live and die with individual teams in each conference. Yet, I can easily name the last three starting quarterbacks for USC, Florida, Alabama, Oklahoma, Texas, etc.

I couldn't tell you who started for Iowa last year, let alone five years ago.

Except no one was comparing Iowa to USC, Florida, Alabama, Oklahoma, Texas, etc

It looked like he was comparing them to Wisconsin, Clemson, Colorado, and Washington. Can you name 5 QBs combined from any of those schools over the last 10 years?

SI

[RedKingGold]

Originally Posted by sterlingice

Except no one was comparing Iowa to USC, Florida, Alabama, Oklahoma, Texas, etc

It looked like he was comparing them to Wisconsin, Clemson, Colorado, and Washington. Can you name 5 QBs combined from any of those schools over the last 10 years?

SI

My point was, if Iowa wanted to jump up a tier, they would need to have shown the short-term national interest that the Florida's and Oklahoma's have.

In that respect, I would argue that Boise State has done more to climb to above the "knight" level than Iowa based on my test. My comment was after JiMGA's, which basically makes the same point.

[BishopMVP]

Originally Posted by JonInMiddleGA

You're leaving out the "does anybody outside the home state give a fuck about them" factor or more politely "does the team have a national profile" factor.

Let's also not forget about the "when someone mentions the school, how long before football comes to mind" factor. That list of King's make this aspect pretty clear to me. A couple of the Barons are kind of iffy on this part I think but still at least arguable.

I think Iowa really loses in this category because up until the last 2? years, they would start every year 1-3 or smth and eliminate themselves from national discussion before finishing on a run. I wasn't excited about it, and there's no way they were a top 2 team, but Iowa hung around the BCS title discussion for a long time these past 2 years iirc, which helps raise their profile in the public eye.

[Mizzou B-ball fan]

I guess I never understood the whole prestige thing. In the end, I just want my school to have games that mean something and give us a chance to win the conference and a remote shot at going to the National Championship. Mizzou is in that position now and it's a lot more fun than hoping for a 6 win season and a bowl game like we had for the 25 years previous to this last 5 years.

[MacroGuru]

Originally Posted by Mizzou B-ball fan

I guess I never understood the whole prestige thing. In the end, I just want my school to have games that mean something and give us a chance to win the conference and a remote shot at going to the National Championship. Mizzou is in that position now and it's a lot more fun than hoping for a 6 win season and a bowl game like we had for the 25 years previous to this last 5 years.

This....BYU is on their first season as an independent and I haven't been more excited for a season in who knows how long.

Granted, our schedule is top heavy and I would be delusional to say they could play for an NC this year (outside chance they may get a BCS bowl game, that's if miracles happen.).

But the fact we are now booking games against teams we haven't been able to play in the past makes this great for me.

Now if we can get away from the low tier WAC teams in the schedule I would be happy, but for what Tom Holmoe has done in the next 2 years in a short period of time...color me impressed.

[sterlingice]

Originally Posted by Mizzou B-ball fan

I guess I never understood the whole prestige thing.

You know, I really wanted to not post this, but I just couldn't pass it up

Of course, you couldn't, being a Mizzou fan

SI

[Matthean]

Originally Posted by Mizzou B-ball fan

I guess I never understood the whole prestige thing. In the end, I just want my school to have games that mean something and give us a chance to win the conference and a remote shot at going to the National Championship. Mizzou is in that position now and it's a lot more fun than hoping for a 6 win season and a bowl game like we had for the 25 years previous to this last 5 years.

This pretty much sounds like a Michigan State fan.

[Mizzou B-ball fan]

Originally Posted by sterlingice

You know, I really wanted to not post this, but I just couldn't pass it up

Of course, you couldn't, being a Mizzou fan

SI

Just to get back on topic, KU will do really well in the Mountain West.

[sterlingice]

Originally Posted by Mizzou B-ball fan

Just to get back on topic, KU will do really well in the Mountain West.

With Boise State and TCU there, not bloody likely

Don't worry, when the Big XII (Big X? WTF are we in these days, anyway?) breaks up, that 3% chance of landing in the SEC or Big Ten (Big Twelve, Big We-Want-Notre-Dame, whatever) won't materialize so you can stop dreaming. Will you be joining us in the Big East, the Mountain West, or is Mizzou more of a MAC or C-USA school?

SI

[SackAttack]

Originally Posted by sterlingice

With Boise State and TCU there, not bloody likely

Don't worry, when the Big XII (Big X? WTF are we in these days, anyway?) breaks up, that 3% chance of landing in the SEC or Big Ten (Big Twelve, Big We-Want-Notre-Dame, whatever) won't materialize so you can stop dreaming. Will you be joining us in the Big East, the Mountain West, or is Mizzou more of a MAC or C-USA school?

SI

I'm rooting for Horizon League, myself. Then I can see the basketball games live and in person when they play UWGB!

[panerd]

Originally Posted by sterlingice

With Boise State and TCU there, not bloody likely

Don't worry, when the Big XII (Big X? WTF are we in these days, anyway?) breaks up, that 3% chance of landing in the SEC or Big Ten (Big Twelve, Big We-Want-Notre-Dame, whatever) won't materialize so you can stop dreaming. Will you be joining us in the Big East, the Mountain West, or is Mizzou more of a MAC or C-USA school?

SI

I hope so. I don't have the elitest mindset that a lot of Mizzou fans have gotten from recent success in football and semi-success in basketball. I love road trips to Lawrence, Manhatten, Ames, and Stillwater. (Really am missing Lincoln and sort of miss Boulder also) Really hoping the remaining members of the Big 8 can stay together somehow, the rivalries actually do mean something... obviously KU/MU and KSU/KU but I also can sit down on a Saturday and watch OU/OSU football or ISU/KSU basketball don't really have any desire to watch SEC or Big Ten. Would rather not play too many games in the pacific time zone but will gladly take that over having to drive 500+ miles to see a road SEC game.

[sterlingice]

Arkansas would make a good natural rivalry for you guys. But, it's kindof like anything else- does going to play Ole Miss do anything for ya?

Now, if KU had a chance to go to the SEC or would have to join, say, C-USA, sure I'd rather see them in the SEC (wow, would our football get killed). But, at the end of the day, I'd rather a bunch of the Big XII just all head together to, say, the Big East and keep a lot of those rivalries together.

SI

[Mizzou B-ball fan]

Originally Posted by panerd

I hope so. I don't have the elitest mindset that a lot of Mizzou fans have gotten from recent success in football and semi-success in basketball. I love road trips to Lawrence, Manhatten, Ames, and Stillwater. (Really am missing Lincoln and sort of miss Boulder also) Really hoping the remaining members of the Big 8 can stay together somehow, the rivalries actually do mean something... obviously KU/MU and KSU/KU but I also can sit down on a Saturday and watch OU/OSU football or ISU/KSU basketball don't really have any desire to watch SEC or Big Ten. Would rather not play too many games in the pacific time zone but will gladly take that over having to drive 500+ miles to see a road SEC game.

I agree with this. Really love the rivalries that existed between the Big 8 schools. All within a 5-6 hour drive of KC. I'll miss that a lot when this conference splinters apart.

[Mizzou B-ball fan]

dola

New post from the Tech poster on Tigerboard. Makes it pretty clear that Texas Tech admins wants Mizzou to go public on SEC ambitions early to give Tech better negotiation options with the Pac-XX.

Reasons for leaks aren't always obvious, but you can rest assured that when Mondo (State Rep in Texas) has something for me, it is based on conditions at the time, and is always information that SOMEBODY wants known.

So, I think by now everyone knows aTm is leaving the B12 for the SEC.

Mondo tells me there is a debate on as to whether to apply on Friday the 2nd before Labor Day so there is an extra day for reality to set in or Tuesday the 6th.

The last of the negotiations with the SEC have been complete for awhile and the last of the lawyer speak is falling in to place.

There are still a few B12 liability issues, one that may be legit, that may go "unprotected" if they have to. These issues, other than one, are mainly idle threats tossed in by Baylor interests. Baptists carry weight down here, all be it, less than the Mormon's in Utah

Tech really needs a bit more help publicly from Mizzou to make sure the Pac10 deal is seen as a lock. Most of the dealings related to Missouri's move are executive session type of stuff and nobody's talking.

Mondo said there is no change in the SEC and Mizzoo stance, aTm goes SEC, Mizzoo goes SEC immediately after.

The problem is that other programs keep making runs from the east side of SEC territory, NC State for example, and the more options that pop up the more the chances, slim as they are, that someone else will wrangle their way in.

It wouldn't hurt to have somebody from Mizzou just come right out and leak it, "When aTm is accepted to the SEC, it is our intention to apply for membership as well".

[panerd]

Originally Posted by Mizzou B-ball fan

I agree with this. Really love the rivalries that existed between the Big 8 schools. All within a 5-6 hour drive of KC. I'll miss that a lot when this conference splinters apart.

And with all apologies to Cartman (though I am pretty sure he will agree) the games with Texas are fun for Mizzou fans but I am sure Longhorn fans could probably care less and the games with Baylor, Tech, and A&M really mean nothing at all so losing the Texas contingent wouldn't really break my heart. (Even knowing what it will certainly do to our football recruiting) Problem is that I am not sure how fond OU/OSU are about the old Big 8 (especially with NU gone) as compared with "greener pastures" of a super conference.

[Mizzou B-ball fan]

Billy Liucci reporting that A&M has given official word to Beebe/Big 12 that they will be leaving the conference. Also said that even OU is growing weary of Texas and their Longhorn Network pursuits.

[Ksyrup]

The official statement about "looking at conference affiliation" is public.

As someone tweeted, "TAMU just changed relationship status from "It's complicated" to "single."

[dawgfan]

Originally Posted by Ksyrup

As someone tweeted, "TAMU just changed relationship status from "It's complicated" to "single."

LOLZ

[tarcone]

SMU has stated they will join the B12. Pretty even swap, IMO.