Big Ten and other Conference Expansion

[Gatorubet]

Texas. Well, the Big-10 is just too good for Texas.

I think it would be far better to let Texas join the motley group of miscreants in the SEC, and then for you to speak derisively of us all.

 

[BUCKYLE]

I don't want to do the statistics right now but I'd be willing to bet that the Big XII over that period of time has put up similar numbers...

I don't want to do the stats either, but I'd be willing to bet that that is horse shit.

 

[Buckeye Maniac]

I don't want to do the statistics right now but I'd be willing to bet that the Big XII over that period of time has put up similar numbers...

According to Wikipedia, the Big 12 has had 8 Final Four appearances since 1990. Kansas has 5 of those.

 

[jwinslow]

I don't want to do the statistics right now but I'd be willing to bet that the Big XII over that period of time has put up similar numbers...

whoops

(give the Big East a few more years as is and I'll add them in too)

a few more years till what? They've been doing it for awhile.

I think on average the Big Ten is usually 3rd or 4th best among the major D-1 conferences over the years. the ACC and Big East have been dominant...the SEC has had it's runs...and the Pac-10 has been big a few times...but consistently the Big Ten is up there with the Big XII in terms of stature in b-ball...

The big ten has been head and shoulders above big x 12.

Wisconsin and Michigan state are perennial contenders. Purdue and ohio state are typically top-20 squads with top-5 every few years. Until the last few years, Illinois and Indiana had some elite squads.

 

[Coqui]

Texas. Well, the Big-10 is just too good for Texas.

I think it would be far better to let Texas join the motley group of miscreants in the SEC, and then for you to speak derisively of us all.

We can't allow that to happen. We like Texas :p

 

[chance]

Jim Delany talks expansion (video).

Big Ten Commissioner Jim Delany - ESPN Video - ESPN

As expected he doesn't say a whole lot other than the Big Ten is looking at schools internally and won't be releasing anything public until the presidents agree on a direction.

 

[BB73]

SI.com

Not all in Big Ten want expansion

CHAMPAIGN, Ill. (AP) -- Big Ten University presidents and athletic directors talk about a handful of factors that they say will decide whether the conference expands.

But listen closely and it sounds like one factor outweighs them all: Money.

The Big Ten generates more than any other conference in the country, thanks in part to its one-of-a-kind Big Ten Network. And no one in the conference, not even enthusiastic expansion advocates such as Wisconsin athletic director Barry Alvarez, wants to sacrifice a dime of the roughly $22 million each school gets a year.

"You just don't jump into the league and get a full share of what everyone else in this league has established over time," Alvarez said. "I think someone has to buy their way into the league."

Alvarez sees expansion as a path toward the kind of football title game that keeps the SEC and other conferences on national TV and fans' radar after Thanksgiving, when the Big Ten typically begins a multiweek break before the bowls.

"You take a look at the championship week in December and we're non-players," said Alvarez, the former coach who led Wisconsin to football prominence. "We're irrelevant."

Texas, Missouri, Rutgers, Syracuse, Pitt and Notre Dame have all been mentioned as possible targets since the Big Ten announced in December that it was evaluating the possibility of expanding the 11-team conference.

"If you look at the college landscape across the country, look at television contracts that are coming up over the next 5-8 years, this is probably the right time for us to see if there is there any value in trying to add a team or teams," Ohio State athletic director Gene Smith said at the time.

The three big factors Big Ten presidents and athletic directors say any new member would have to bring to the discussion are academic credentials, a strong geographic fit and money.
​

Cont'd ...

 

[mross34]

Report: Firm's analysis shows Big Ten expansion would be good for revenue - ESPN

An analysis prepared by a Chicago-based firm looked at whether the addition of five schools would generate enough revenue to make expansion worthwhile, according to the Chicago Tribune.

"The point was: We can all get richer if we bring in the right team or teams," a source told the Tribune.

I'm not sure how to read that. It sounds like they might be thinking about 16 teams though.

 

[mross34]

FWIW here's my vote for 16

OSU
scUM
MSU
PSU
Cuse
Rutgers
Indiana
Purdue

Texas
Wisc
Minn
Iowa
NWern
Illinois
Missouri
Texas A&M

 

[ScriptOhio]

FWIW here's my vote for 16

OSU
scUM
MSU
PSU
Cuse
Rutgers
Indiana
Purdue

Texas
Wisc
Minn
Iowa
NWern
Illinois
Missouri
Texas A&M
Nebraska

Uh...I counted 17. Who are you throwing out? Oh...I see you are from Chicago....so you voted more than once....

 

[NJ-Buckeye]

NCAA just called me... told me it was Texas

 

[mross34]

Uh...I counted 17. Who are you throwing out? Oh...I see you are from Chicago....so you voted more than once....

Good call.

 

[muffler dragon]

Report: Firm's analysis shows Big Ten expansion would be good for revenue - ESPN



I'm not sure how to read that. It sounds like they might be thinking about 16 teams though.

According to the newspaper report, the source said the five schools evaluated by the firm William Blair & Company were Pittsburgh, Notre Dame, Missouri, Syracuse and Rutgers, though others also could be considered.

I read it with a big ol' :thumbsdown:

 

[TheRob8801]

My comment on similarities was in regards to Sweet 16's or better...but judging by the discrepancy in the amount of Final Fours I'd guess I was more off than I thought...

So the Big XII doesn't have anyone other than Kansas. I incorrectly assumed that in terms of tournament success OU, Texas and Mizzou have done enough to keep the conference relevant...

However:

...a few more years till what? They've been doing it for awhile.

Have they been doing it as long as the ACC?

That was my point...

The big ten has been head and shoulders above big x 12.

Wisconsin and Michigan state are perennial contenders. Purdue and ohio state are typically top-20 squads with top-5 every few years. Until the last few years, Illinois and Indiana had some elite squads.

Did I not say 3rd or 4th?

There have been years where the Big XII was better...there have mostly been years when the Big Ten was better...but neither have been consistently better than the ACC or Big East over the last 20 years. It doesn't really matter how large the gap is between 3rd and 4th...it's still 3rd and 4th...

 

[jwinslow]

So the

Have they been doing it as long as the ACC?

That was my point...

so even though the big east has been more stacked with final four contenders... There's only room for one elite conference (which is basically two teams and a lot of solid but not elite squads)?

There have been years where the Big XII was better...there have mostly been years when the Big Ten was better...but neither have been consistently better than the ACC or Big East over the last 20 years.

so do they have to be elite for 30 years or 40 years before you'll acknowledge them as elite also?



There isn't one great entity and a bunch of wannabes. The big east has been elite for awhile now.


The big ten needs a facelift in football. I'd argue they can do it themselves with a useful coach up north, better recruiting at psu and better trenches at osu. They've done the latter two.

Basketball is just fine and has been all decade. Every year the big ten makes noise in the big dance and has deep runs into the tourney while duke underachieves and unc rescues the conference reputation annually with their dominance.