Big Ten and other Conference Expansion

[OSU_D/]

But it has become clear that this is an effort by the Big Ten to position itself for the long term. It is a move that acknowledges long term trends in the Midwest that could lead to the gradual but inevitable decline of the conference. (There are reasons beyond RR that Michigan is struggling to recruit. Why set yourself up as a big name in the Detroit area when they are bull dozing entire neighborhoods?)

I am now of the opinion that we need a minimum of 3 schools and would not mind seeing 5. The further south we go the better. Geographical proximity be damned. Traditional rivalries be damned (with one exception of course).

And it takes as long as it takes.

Excellently stated! That is why taking ND, if the news of us taking Nebraska and the resulting demolition of the BXII/creation of 16 team conferences brings them to the Big 10, is not enough. ND is good for the present... but they are in the same "Rust Belt" region. This site doesn't like to here that the SEC has the upper hand in anything, but population shifts have certainly benefitted that conference. Thats why if we have the ability to add a Georgia Tech (ATL), Maryland (D.C.), Colorado (Denver) and/or schools capturing the major metro areas of the Northeast part of the US then the Big 10 needs to do so.

Adding to the Big 10 Network footprint is great for the present, but it needs to be added in areas that are also likely to continue growing substantially in the future so as to provide ever increasing revenues.

I just wish Texas wasn't so tied to 3 other schools, could get over being a geographic outlier and could get over requiring special treatment.

 

[armsbendback]

I posted this on another board, but wanted to get opinion from my favorite buckeye board. There are some obvious +'s and -'s to it:

-------------------------------------------------------------------

So 14 team B10 conference(new name of course)

This is my best attempt to make sense of traditional rivalries, geography, and competitive scheduling.

-Nebraska and Mizzou are playing geographically close teams in their division

-ND gets to maintain their already existing rivalries with Michigan, MSU, Purdue and adds marquee games yearly vs. OSU and PSU

-OSU vs scUM is still the last game on the conference schedule every year

Plains division

Iowa
​

Nebraska
Wisconsin
Mizzou
Illinois
Minnesota
Indiana

Lakes Division
OSU
Michigan
Notre Dame
Penn State
MSU
Northwestern
Purdue

-Each team plays 4 non conference games to start the season(3 if they eventually expand to 16 teams)

-Each team plays the other six teams in their division

-No conference championship game

-2 games per year are played against teams from the opposite division based on seeding from the previous season

1 plays 1,3 from opposite division
2 plays 2,4 from opposite division
3 plays 1,5 from opposite division
4 plays 2,6 from opposite division
5 plays 3,7 from opposite division
6 plays 4,6 from opposite division
7 plays 5,7 from opposite division

That seeding based scheduled for out of division games ensure that Marquee teams play each other and that cellar dwellers have an opportunity to rise. The trick would be figuring out the home and away games for your out of division games and ensuring that no one team had to play an unfairly balanced Home/Away schedule in any one year.

This will also ensure that the top 2-3 teams from the Conference as a whole will have an impressive strength of schedule when up for consideration in the elite bowl games(untill the eventual Playoff system is worked out)

This type of opposite division seeding scheduling accomodates the addition of 2 more teams(one to each division) if the conference decides it needs to bump up to 16.

Have at it. I'm sure there are plenty of flaws in it, but I think it would make for an exciting and unique conference format and give us a conference with 5 of all time great programs(OSU, ND, PSU, Neb Mich(present day woes excluded))

 

[Oh8ch]

And another thing -

As to the question of what the expanded conference should be called, there is only one answer.

The Big Ten.

What's in a name?

Statistics. Bragging rights.

Did you know that Texas has only won three Big XII championships? They won a lot of "conference" championships, including 27 in the old Southwest conference. But who cares about the Southwest conference? Who under the age of 21 can even remember it?

Did you know that statistics on "all time" record holders in the Big XII only go back 13 years? How many people care who the all time leading rusher was in the Southwest Conference?

Rename the conference and all of the stats get reset to zero. Nobody gets hurt worse than OSU and Michigan by doing so.

Leave the name alone and our next championship is our 35th, not our first. All of our rushing records retain their meaning. We can talk about Tressel's string of conference championships in a meaningful context today and 20 years from today.

We are not breaking up or reforming a conference. We are just expanding. Leave the name alone and that remains clear.

Don't set aside 115 years of conference history because or an ancient error in logical typing. We just need to get our heads around "Ten" as a name and not a number.

It is and must always be the Big Ten.

This rose by any other name smells not near as sweet.

 

[armsbendback]

All great points. In the scenario I posted above, I believe the 14 teams hail from 10 states, so the we could go back to the original logo(pre-PSU), retain the essence of the meaning of the conference name, and keep all the records and stats intact

And another thing -

As to the question of what the expanded conference should be called, there is only one answer.

The Big Ten.

What's in a name?

Statistics. Bragging rights.

Did you know that Texas has only won three Big XII championships? They won a lot of "conference" championships, including 27 in the old Southwest conference. But who cares about the Southwest conference? Who under the age of 21 can even remember it?

Did you know that statistics on "all time" record holders in the Big XII only go back 13 years? How many people care who the all time leading rusher was in the Southwest Conference?

Rename the conference and all of the stats get reset to zero. Nobody gets hurt worse than OSU and Michigan by doing so.

Leave the name alone and our next championship is our 35th, not our first. All of our rushing records retain their meaning. We can talk about Tressel's string of conference championships in a meaningful context today and 20 years from today.

We are not breaking up or reforming a conference. We are just expanding. Leave the name alone and that remains clear.

Don't set aside 115 years of conference history because or an ancient error in logical typing. We just need to get our heads around "Ten" as a name and not a number.

It is and must always be the Big Ten.

This rose by any other name smells not near as sweet.

 

[cincibuck]

I don't think the quality (depth) is there in terms of football viewership under this expansion scenario for them to be able to compete in TV on the Big Ten and SEC's terms.

To continue with the analogy, a warm water port for the Pac-10 won't be that big of a deal if their chief exports are going to be vodka and mail order brides.

In the proposed Pac-16, only USC, Texas and Oklahoma can be counted on to bring home the bacon. When they're negotiating their next TV contract, the price they are able to command will be dictated by the whole of the conference, not just those three. 3 truly marketable teams out of 16 just won't get the job done for them by my estimation.

Right now the average east-of-the-Sierras/national football viewer sees USC maybe twice a year, against Notre Dame and depending on how bad UCLA is that year, or if they play a game like last year's in Columbus. Last year the average east-of-the-Sierras/national football viewer saw the Bucks play USC, Penn State, Iowa and Michigan. Adding the Big XII South would give USC games against Texas, Oklahoma and aTm that could sell nationally. As texas figured out long ago, ain't no one gives a damn about a Baylor - Wazoo game except their alums -- and how many of you were upset when you couldn't get the Indiana -- Illinois game last year?

Granted the era when you had to wait for the Monday paper to find the score of the Washington - Arizona State game are long gone. But sleep patterns still shape how many people see your product and in that sense the Big 10 has a huge advantage over the Pac 10 -- especially if they lose the crazy notion that you can't play night games in November.

 

[MondayAMGenius]

And another thing -

As to the question of what the expanded conference should be called, there is only one answer.

The Big Ten.

What's in a name?

Statistics. Bragging rights.
.............
This rose by any other name smells not near as sweet.

I really like this post. But I like it because it reminds us of the real value of tradition. And I agree with many points.

The question is, what traditional powerhouse will take a back seat to OUR traditions? Why would Texas, who was just in a NC, or any storied giant, join us as a member of the "Big Ten"? It's like not even acknowledging they exist.

Asking other schools to abandon their collective pasts but keeping tOSU's intact, would be having our cake and eating it too at the expense of another.

 

[DaddyBigBucks]

I really like this post. But I like it because it reminds us of the real value of tradition. And I agree with many points.

The question is, what traditional powerhouse will take a back seat to OUR traditions? Why would Texas, who was just in a NC, or any storied giant, join us as a member of the "Big Ten"? It's like not even acknowledging they exist.

Asking other schools to abandon their collective pasts but keeping tOSU's intact, would be having our cake and eating it too at the expense of another.

In the case of Texas, their traditional conference is the SWC. That conference imploded from its own corruption. Their new conference is a bastard child that none of the members feel particularly attached to. But in the interest of appearances, they are trying to pin the blame of breaking up the conference on Nebraska/Missouri with this deadline.

 

[Buckeyefrankmp]

As to the question of what the expanded conference should be called,

We just need to get our heads around "Ten" as a name and not a number.

How about using the letter X. Big X. It stands for the roman numeral 10 but it could also stand for the variable x. It could be 11, 12, 14 or 16. Variables are like that. We would not have to change it if we decided to add or subtract team later on.

 

[ScriptOhio]

Big Ten won't be rushed on expansion

CHICAGO ? The Big Ten didn't send out any invitations to prospective members at its meeting of school presidents and chancellors Sunday, but the conference did send out the signal that it wasn't going to be forced into making a rash move just because another conference (Pac-10) was jumping in headfirst into the college conference expansion waters.
But Big Ten officials did say they could alter their original 12- to 18-month timeline to study and act on expansion, and for the first time indicated they could do the process in steps.
.
.
.
"What's obvious in following all of the news that you write, our announcement in December has caused institutions, as individuals, to consider their future and conferences to consider their future," Simon said. "As a result that has had an impact on our deliberations, not on the criteria or deliberateness of the process. Obviously, if we are moving through a process, targeting a timeline as long as 18 months, it is possible that the timeline may be altered, but not the process."
But how fast could the Big Ten's timeline be altered? By Friday? (The MU board of curators just happens to meet this week.) "That's up for speculation," Simon said. "I won't comment."

Entire article: Big Ten won't be rushed on expansion - STLtoday.com

 

[buckeyesin07]

Frankly, Texas's arrogance and "me-first" attitude" line up quite well with tOSU and Michigan - along with their striving for excellence in both academic and athletic endeavors. Like it or not, they're a lot like us. That's why I want them so badly in the Big Ten.

From all reports, UT's not wanting to be treated as equals with their conference mates is one of the major hurdles to them joining the Big Ten. In that respect, they're nothing like UM and OSU.

 

[MaxBuck]

... UT's not wanting to be treated as equals with their conference mates is one of the major hurdles to them joining the Big Ten.

What evidence do you have for this conclusion? I haven't seen any indication at all that there is a "hurdle" to UT joining the conference, other than perhaps their own reluctance.

 

[DaddyBigBucks]

Osborne/Tressel met in April, precipitating e-mail to NU Chancellor

ESPN blog

...

Nebraska athletic director Tom Osborne met with Ohio State head football coach Jim Tressel on April 19, according to an e-mail Osborne sent to Nebraska chancellor Harvey Perlman on April 20. ESPN.com colleague Mark Schlabach obtained the e-mail through a records request to Nebraska.

"I think it would be a good time if we met sometime soon regarding the expansion landscape," Osborne wrote to Perlman.

...

It does not say that the topic of discussion with Tressel was expansion, but you have to wonder if he would e-mail the chancellor the very next day, asking to talk about expansion, if they had not broached the subject.

 

[ORD_Buckeye]

In the case of Texas, their traditional conference is the SWC. That conference imploded from its own corruption. Their new conference is a bastard child that none of the members feel particularly attached to. But in the interest of appearances, they are trying to pin the blame of breaking up the conference on Nebraska/Missouri with this deadline.

Watching the behavior of Texas manipulate the Big XII office while planning their own exit, the meddling of the TX legislature and considering the thoughts of some posters here (cincibuck in particular), I'm officially off the Texas bandwagon. they are a cancer and far, far more trouble than they're worth.

I love how Texas is now trying to make Nebraska/Missouri the bad guys. They treated the rest of the B12 like a pimp treats his whores and now have the nerve to be offended when those schools even think about leaving the dysfunctional relationship they're stuck in--at the very moment they're plotting their own (lucrative) escape from the conference.

The Pac 10 had better watch what it hopes for; it just might get it.

 

[Buckeye86]

If the Texas legislature demands A&M, Tech, and freaking Baylor go along with Texas where ever they go, then yeah, fuck that. I am off the bandwagon as well.

 

[BB73]

Let the P10 get stuck with the cheatingest school in history (Oklahoma), the Baptist BYU (Baylor) and an academic backwater (Tech) in order to land Texas. Let them then deal with their newfound prize plopping himself down at the table, putting his cowboy boots up on the table and immediately acting like he owns the place.

Texas is not worth the trouble, political meddling, arrogance and general bullsh!t.

Delaney, however, does need to step the Big Ten's response up and hit the home run he promised. To me that's playing hardball with the fucking domers and knocking them off their high horse and into the Big Ten. If he has to destroy the Big East in the process, well...chips fly when you're cutting wood. Then, out of Colorado, Mizzou, Nebraska, Pitt, Syracuse, Rutgers (maybe even make a play for BC to give the domers a natural rival) take the four that make the most sense.

How about a combination of a conspiracy theory and Delany actually being smart?

The end game is obviously what happens to Texas and Notre Dame. They'd both prefer the status quo, but might be forced into a move. Texas won't be part of the first move that destroys the Big 12. So Delany could have had private talks with Scott of the Pac Ten (a historical partner) in order to orchestrate this:

1 - Nebraska and/or Mizzou are invited to the Big 10 and accept
2 - Texas says the Big 12 is no longer viable and leads the big jump to the Pac 16, including the Oklahoma pair and some of the other Texas schools
3 - The SEC adds 4 teams in order to not be outsized, raiding the ACC for 4 schools - probably Miami, FSU, Clemson, and GTech
4 - The ACC destroys the Big East in order to survive, adding 4 teams from WVU, Rutgers, UConn, Pitt, Syracuse, Louisville, and Cincy
5 - The Big East is no longer viable, and Notre Dame is forced to accept an invitation to the Big Ten

The Big Ten(14) ends up with ND, Nebraska, and Mizzou - 2 big name programs and 3 good geographic (and acceptable academic) fits.

The Pac Ten(16) adds Texas and Oklahoma, and expands into the noon ET kickoff window, as cinci has pointed out.

The SEC has expanded its teams, but not its footprint.

Overall, a net gain for both the Pac Ten and the Big Ten, and enough of a reason to plan together to make it happen. Some may say Delany and the Big Ten aren't that sharp, but isn't it hard to believe that the Big Ten would spend months considering expansion without having some conversations with their 65-year Rose Bowl partner?