Big Ten and other Conference Expansion

[Bucknut24]

are there any articles out there that explains why Texas isn't has a crazy choice as it sounds, I keep arguing with a Texas fan, on why it's not as crazy as it sounds.

 

[DaddyBigBucks]

...I keep arguing with a Texas fan, on why it's not as crazy as it sounds.

Why?

 

[DaddyBigBucks]

Chicago Tribune says expansion isn't moving at the pace previously thought.

Delany has informed colleagues that, contrary to a Tribune report, the timetable for Big Ten expansion has not been accelerated from the period of 12-to-18 months that was announced in December.
"You know, Jim wouldn't be one of the top commissioners and one of the top sports people in the country if he didn't take things into very careful consideration," (Big 12 Commissioner Dan) Beebe said.

Beebe also expressed misgivings about the Missouri Governor opining that any Big 12 team should prefer the Big 10 due to academic concerns.

 

[DaddyBigBucks]

TSN reports the same: Expansion not on fast-track

Penn State president Graham Spanier said Tuesday he doesn't expect Big Ten commissioner Jim Delany to inform other conference commissioners of Big Ten expansion plans during this week's BCS meetings in Arizona

 

[y0yoyoin]

Conferences wait on Big Ten's move - Andy Staples - SI.com

It seemed laughable a few months ago when reports surfaced that Texas could be a Big Ten target. But between the lines of Beebe's comments about Big 12 schools complaining about the league's revenue-sharing agreement is a suggestion that even Texas is in play. "The fact of the matter is this combination of institutions has profited everybody," Beebe said. "If some did not want to be in this combination, I'm sure there are others that would have a significantly less amount of revenue in their pockets, so they could get a pyrrhic victory." Translation: If you keep whining and chase away the Longhorns, you'll all be poorer for it.

​

 

[FCollinsBuckeye]

Regardless of what eventually happens, I'm just thrilled that the Big Ten is pretty much firmly at the forefront of any realignment that happens. The fact that the Big Ten seems to be in the drivers seat is a huge credit to the foresight of the conference leadership, imo.

 

[DaddyBigBucks]

...The fact that the Big Ten seems to be in the drivers seat is a huge credit to the foresight of the conference leadership, imo.

IMO they need to move fast if they wish to remain in the driver's seat.

Although I am a traditionalist at heart, it is silly to drag one's feet if change is certain. Better to lead it than be buried by it.

For that reason, you can now not only number me among those who believe that this expansion is a failure without Texas; you can also lump me in with those who would accept Notre Dame. Adding both would add to the financial success of the BTN, and right now, that is what's best for Ohio State.

Other (non-monetary) factors that are best for Ohio State are not really on the table because the expansion bus has left the station. We can drive it or we can get run over by it.

 

[OSU_D/]

Regardless of what eventually happens, I'm just thrilled that the Big Ten is pretty much firmly at the forefront of any realignment that happens. The fact that the Big Ten seems to be in the drivers seat is a huge credit to the foresight of the conference leadership, imo.

Funny you should write that. No joke, I just received a phone from ACC country and the talk is "lets get Syracuse and Rutgers before the Big 10 does." Clearly they want to get out in front and get into the NYC market ahead of the Big 10.

Edit* - Now I see DBB's response. Exactly my point, you can't stay in the driver's seat for long if you don't act somehow. However I am sure Jim is doing what he needs to do behind closed doors. I do agree with DBB... UT and ND would be great. I assume UT necessitates TAMU. So there is 3... and I'd take some combination of Nebraska, Mizzou, Rutgers, Cuse for the other two.

 

[BB73]

are there any articles out there that explains why Texas isn't has a crazy choice as it sounds, I keep arguing with a Texas fan, on why it's not as crazy as it sounds.

A couple months ago somebody posted a link to a blog in this thread, generating some discussion. The blog was by Frank the Tank, first linked to in post 1883 of this thread.

Frank.the.Tank

 

[muffler dragon]

HNebraska --- Still trying to wrap my mind around this one. Would be a new state on the map and is a border state of Iowa, but would it seriously bring in TV sets? It is an AAU and land grant institution, but its academic reputation is questioned by opposing fans within their current conference. Would bring in a historically strong football program that has come upon hard times over the last almost ten years, but wouldn't add any other "can't miss" athletic programs that I'm aware of. Too many questions in my opinion, but sounds like they would jump at the question if we were to ask them to join.

FWIW, I do know that Nebraska kicks ass at volleyball.

I just hope we don't "settle" for schools/a school who won't strengthen the Big 10 both athletically and academically.

Completely agree.

I'm firmly in the "any expansion that doesn't include Tejas is epic fail"

With 1 I'd like it if the Big 10 added: Texas (Duh)
With 3: Texas, Mizzu, and ... probably WVU or 'Cuse
With 5: Texas, Mizzu, WVU, 'Cuse and ??

But, I'd settle with:

Texas + anyone they require comes along with them.

I am in complete agreement with this. When I read groupings of 3 or 5 that have Texas absent, it just seems bleh.

 

[Jaxbuck]

The old joke is to say "I never had a ten but one night I had 5 two's and I think that should count."

Lets hope Delany knows that's just a joke. All the Syracuse/Rutgers/Mizzou's in the CFB universe don't equal Texas (or even ND) for the purposes of this discussion.

 

[zincfinger]

Another interesting aspect of division play for the Big Ten is that you'd finally do away with the scenario of a champion skipping the runner up or co-champs due to scheduling quirks. Eight teams per division lets you play your whole division, plus one regular rival from the other division, along with a rotating slot for a random team from the other division. You'd still get a weird effect where you'd potentially only play a particular Big Ten opponent once every seven years (unless you meet them in a championship game), so maybe you rotate both of those slots rather than protect a rivalry.

The old joke is to say "I never had a ten but one night I had 5 two's and I think that should count."

Lets hope Delany knows that's just a joke. All the Syracuse/Rutgers/Mizzou's in the CFB universe don't equal Texas (or even ND) for the purposes of this discussion.

Exactly right. There's really only one ideal fit for the BigTen, and that's Notre Dame. Don't kid yourself about the fact that expansion has its drawbacks. Penn State was ideal enough to make it worth the drawbacks. Few schools are, depending on your perspective. All of these scenarios will generate some excitement, at least in the short term. Most or all of them will quite possibly generate more money (which is perhaps the ultimate driver). But do be aware that almost all of these scenarios involve the destruction of the BigTen Conference in every meaningful respect, and its replacement with something different, perhaps exciting, but not BigTen. There's really no way to do this without eliminating traditional matchups and eliminating the regional nature of the conference. Or for that matter, eliminating the regional nature of all conferences and thus eliminating the regional nature of college football.

 

[muffler dragon]

There's really only one ideal fit for the BigTen, and that's Notre Dame.

Neither BB nor Jax make this statement.

 

[jlb1705]

Can we add Georgia Tech to the expansion list? ACC, you're on notice!

Georgia Institute of Technology Wins Rare Invitation to Join the AAU - Research - The Chronicle of Higher Education

 

[bkochmc]

I forgot to mention that I think having Notre Dame, Missouri, Pittsburgh, Rutgers and Syracuse sucks.

It may be wonderful in the future, but from strictly a football perspective this adds five more mid-level (or lower) teams to the Big Ten. Whoop-ee.

Agree... the only sport that alignment would be good for is basketball as that would add 2 high-caliber teams (Pitt, Syracuse) and second-tier teams (ND, Missouri).

I'm firmly in the "any expansion that doesn't include Tejas is epic fail"

With 1 I'd like it if the Big 10 added: Texas (Duh)
With 3: Texas, Mizzu, and ... probably WVU or 'Cuse
With 5: Texas, Mizzu, WVU, 'Cuse and ??

But, I'd settle with:

Texas + anyone they require comes along with them.

+1 in regards to Texas.

My 'dream' expansions:
1 team - Texas
3 teams - Texas, Nebraska, Syracuse or Pitt
5 teams - Texas, Nebraska, Missouri, any two of Syracuse/Pitt/Rutgers

What I think will happen:
Nebraska, Pitt, Rutgers