Big Ten and other Conference Expansion

[jlb1705]

Right now, M*ch*g*n is doing more to diminish the importance of The Game than expansion could.

 

[Jaxbuck]

I know that people are afraid the addition of a Texas would diminish the importance of the game, but I disagree to a certain extent. I think it will definitely change the importance of the game, but in some senses I see it becoming more important. I digress:

If Texas comes to the Big 10, isn't a 1-loss Big 10+2 champion at the front of the line (along with the SEC) for a MNC berth? If Michigan gets back to their level of play of years past, wouldn't the game typically be for what amounts to a national semifinal, with Ohio State or Michigan a chance to move to within a win of the title game?

I know that has happened several years in the past, but I think that with the added respect Texas would bring to the Big 10 it would happen a good bit more often.

Expansion leaves two possible futures for The Game regardless of new team(s).

Alignment 1: OSU and scUM in the same division.
Outcome: The Game is never again for the B10 championship or the last game of the year.

Alignment 2: OSU and scUM in separate divisions.
Outcome: Potential rematch in the B10 CCG the week after The Game and again, The Game is never again for the B10 championship.

I am not exactly giddy about either scenario, thus my desire that if it has to happen it happen for something earth shattering, not some middle of the road BE team.

 

[sepia5]

The other side of that coin is that it makes the overall season harder, but great programs don't shy away from that.

You haven't been spending enough time in the SEC OOC scheduling thread.

 

[Jake]

As for the impact on The Game, it depends on how it is done.

Nebraska-Oklahoma was a huge rivalry in the Big 8. When it became the Big XII, they destroyed it by putting them in opposite divisions with no mandate to play each year. They chose to make Oklahoma-Texas the focus - it was always big, too, but they were in different conferences until the Big XII - while pushing Nebraska-Colorado as an alternative to NU-OU. The Buffs were good at the time of the expansion, but it still never was as big as the game it replaced, and now CU sucks.

Conversely, when the SEC went to a divisional format they did it without killing the Iron Bowl. Bama-Auburn still meet at the end of the regular season and the game is still huge. Does the winner usually go to the Sugar Bowl? Not necessarily because of the CCG, but the winner of The Game hasn't been usually going to the Rose Bowl during the BCS era, either.

If you're someone who thinks it is sacrilege to play a game after Thanksgiving and for OSU to play another BT team after scUM, any expansion is going to piss you off. There's no avoiding it.

Divisions will be tough to do just based on straight geography

West
Texas
Iowa
Minnesota
Wisconsin
Illinois
Northwestern

East
Ohio State
Penn State
Michigan
Indiana
Purdue
Michigan State

That looks like the Big XII, where the South is tougher from top to bottom than the North, most years. The biggest thing I hate is the unbalanced schedules.

If it was my decision we'd go back to 10 schools and everyone would play everyone, but that's not going to happen. I'd tell Northwestern and Purdue to hit the bricks, bring on the Longhorns and go at it:

My Big Ten
Ohio State
Penn State
Texas
Michigan
Michigan State
Wisconsin
Indiana
Iowa
Minnesota
Illinois

 

[BigWoof31]

We've played in 3 BCS title games, and only pulling a Coop against Sparty in 98 kept it from being four. We've played in 8 BCS bowls, more than any other school. We did that without Texas in our conference.

I don't have a horse in this race - but this is a tremendous point.
The current conference setup isn't hurting you from playing in the biggest and best games.

Texas to the SEC and Arkansas to the Big 12

 

[Jaxbuck]

I don't have a horse in this race - but this is a tremendous point.
The current conference setup isn't hurting you from playing in the biggest and best games.

Texas to the SEC and Arkansas to the Big 12

I agree.

FSU and Nebraska ran rough shod over weak conferences during their dynasties in the 90's, no one really questioned it because they won their Bowl games.

No one would question OSU's dominance of a down B10 if they didn't get Glendaled. The "we need a strong B10" argument doesn't hold water to me. It's all perception based on OSU's performance on the national stage. No one was stopping the OSU/B10 bashing after '06 long enough to notice the B10 actually went 2-1 vs the SEC that year.

We need to avoid 0-5 big game OOC stretches that span 3 years more than we need the rest of the B10 teams to be better imo.

 

[jwinslow]

Not necessarily because of the CCG, but the winner of The Game hasn't been usually going to the Rose Bowl during the BCS era, either.

The winner secured the autobid in the game in 07, 06, 05, 03, 02.

The outlier was 04. iirc, Osu couldve knocked um out, but Wisconsin lost to purdue.

Rr's disastrous regime distorts the consistency of the game. If miles / harbaugh is hired and mallett, boren, arrington, English are retained... I bet um beats joepa and plays for - and loses by 11 - bcs bid against osu. Featuring minor over mcguffie is a big reason behind that.

 

[RugbyBuck]

I am not exactly giddy about either scenario, thus my desire that if it has to happen it happen for something earth shattering, not some middle of the road BE team.

Yes.

 

[Muck]

After reading some of the Longhorn boards yesterday, it seems that some of them think that they should just let Aggy rot, and some seem to think that it would be beneficial to have a geographical rival in-conference and would want to bring them along. On the surface, I see some appeal in bringing aTm along if that's what it takes to get Texas. Bring in Rutgers or Pitt to get to an even number and so Pee Ess Ewe gets the geographical rival that they've always bitched about not having, and call it a day.

Divisions:

• Ohio State
• Texas
• aTm
• Iowa
• Illinois
• Northwestern
• Indiana

• M*ch*g*n
• Penn State
• Rutgers/Pitt
• Purdue
• M*ch*g*n State
• Wisconsin
• Minnesota

That looks like a balanced alignment to me, and you could make a provision for The Game and any other trophy games you wanted to if necessary. Looking at the list, I think this proposal keeps most of the recognizable trophy games intact.

I REALLY don't like the idea of Ohio State & TSUN being in separate divisions. For me that's a deal breaker. Keep the the most historic rivalry in all of sports together or just drop the whole mess.

Rutgers and/or Pitt doesn't exactly wet my knickers either. Rutgers is doomed for mediocrity & Pitt just cannibalizes from Ohio State & (especially) Penn State (although I actually do like them as a school...and the idea of completely wrapping up Penn).

If ya just have to pursue a team on the East Coast I'd target Boston College. Damn good school academically. They already travel far outside their region for just about every game, they've shown a willingness to jump ship for better prospects...and Penn State is a better rivalry for them than anyone in the ACC (which as a conference just doesn't seem to fit them at all).

 

[Piney]

Expansion leaves two possible futures for The Game regardless of new team(s).

Alignment 1: OSU and scUM in the same division.
Outcome: The Game is never again for the B10 championship or the last game of the year.

Alignment 2: OSU and scUM in separate divisions.
Outcome: Potential rematch in the B10 CCG the week after The Game and again, The Game is never again for the B10 championship.

I am not exactly giddy about either scenario, thus my desire that if it has to happen it happen for something earth shattering, not some middle of the road BE team.

Agree with you that while neither scenrio is desirable it is becoming inevitable that a move to a CCG is coming. But of the two alignments above, at least Alignment #1 gives some meaning to the game as the winner would most likely go to the CCG. While in Alignment #2 could lead to rematches if we use the SEC model of protecting one rivalry game. And that would just seem wrong playing them 2 weeks in a row.

 

[Buckeyefrankmp]

We've played in 3 BCS title games, and only pulling a Coop against Sparty in 98 kept it from being four.

Could you clarify what you mean by this?

 

[RugbyBuck]

A choke when there was something meaningful at stake.

 

[RugbyBuck]

I don't necessarily have a problem with an in-season rematch against the weasels. What could be better than beating them once? Beating them twice, of course.

 

[Jaxbuck]

Could you clarify what you mean by this?

The loss to a 6-6 Sparty team in 1998 kept OSU from playing for, and most likely winning, the first ever BCS era national championship.

Calling it pulling a Coop is an homage to Coops ability to lose to teams he had zero business losing to.

IMO The 1998 team is still the best OSU team top to bottom since the '73 team.

 

[Buckeyefrankmp]

A choke when there was something meaningful at stake.

"The loss to a 6-6 Sparty team in 1998 kept OSU from playing for, and most likely winning, the first ever BCS era national championship."

I just read the previous post. You are correct.