Big Ten and other Conference Expansion

[DaddyBigBucks]

At this point I'd really love to hear from some of the great UT posters we had back in '05/'06. Just to hear the opinion of HighLonesome and some of the others would be interesting, and I'm sure they'd have a unique perspective (especially xrayrandy).

 

[Magua]

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

The problem with that is that the Lake division is stacked in comparison to the plains division. Maybe swapping Notre Dame with Minnesota would even things out a bit. For rivalries sake, you could also set one opponent in each division to play every year(OSU/Illinois and Michigan/NotreDame for example, it'd be up to the universities I suppose).

 

[ORD_Buckeye]

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

I don't think Delaney is that Machiavellian as to plot that many moves out on the chessboard. I'm beginning to give him credit for being a smarter than I felt a couple of days ago and particularly for two things vis-a-vis Texas.

First, Letting Texas play its hand in terms of arrogance, manipulation of its existing conference, meddling from its legislature and essentially waiting to get a feel for how good of a fit UT would have been in reality and not just on paper because....

Secondly, it's clear that the B10 (and this certainly comes directly from the Presidents) is not going to sell its soul for expansion. No special treatment. No package deals. And no schools not fitting the criteria. That also probably sent a good message to South Bend to not try any of their crazy sh!t...pull their piece out on the lanes...or the Big Ten would take it from them, shove it up their ass and pull the trigger until it goes click.

 

[DaddyBigBucks]

Adam Rittenberg, the Big 10 blogger at ESPN, has previously written that he will only comment on expansion when there is something substantive to say. As you can imagine, he had something to say yesterday.

Big Ten presidents talk expansion

...
Another important lesson from today is that the league's presidents and chancellors can vote electronically on applicants to the league, so they don't necessarily need to convene as a group. Their next scheduled meeting doesn't take place until December.
...
Simon said the league hasn't settled on a wish list, but the suspects are fairly obvious. She also made it very clear that academics remain a huge part of the Big Ten's expansion process. This league isn't going to admit second-rate academic institutions, so there's no point in speculating about them. "I've facetiously said that at the start of this process," she said, "if we had given fifth graders the criteria, the list of institutions would be essentially the [same] list of institutions that have been bandied about for quite a while by [the media] with much more sophisticated analysis of the sense of fit [by the media]. But as I look at your analysis, academics hasn't been much of the conversation. That's an important component of this. This is not an infinite set of institutions." Does this mean I'm not as smart as a fifth grader? Ouch!
...
In case you forgot, here are the four criteria that the Big Ten is using to evaluate potential applicants: academics, willingness to participate in the Committee on Institutional Cooperation (Big Ten?s internal academic consortium), athletic competitiveness and fiscal responsibility to the conference.
...

 

[ORD_Buckeye]

In case you forgot, here are the four criteria that the Big Ten is using to evaluate potential applicants: academics, willingness to participate in the Committee on Institutional Cooperation (Big Ten?s internal academic consortium), athletic competitiveness and fiscal responsibility to the conference.

I would restate that as "ability to participate in the CIC." Any school would be willing to join. The Big Ten wants schools that can actually step in and participate as peer institutions.

 

[PlanetFrnd]

Not much new in the way of intel, but the NYTimes ran this in its sports section today... this guy Thamel has been following the story fairly closely.

Pacific-10 and Big Ten Step Toward Expansion - NYTimes.com

Pacific-10 and Big Ten Step Toward Expansion
By PETE THAMEL

Published: June 6, 2010


Two meetings of university presidents on Sunday, the Pacific-10's in San Francisco and the Big Ten's in Chicago, could go a long way toward reshaping the alignment of major college athletics.

The most significant news came from the Pac-10 meetings, where presidents voted to give the first-year commissioner Larry Scott authority to move ahead with expansion. With the Pac-10 seriously considering a move to 16 teams, the conference essentially gave Scott permission to hand out invitations to potential new members without consulting its university presidents.

The potential for Pac-10 expansion forced Big Ten Commissioner Jim Delany to acknowledge that the Big Ten's timeline for growth, which had been set at 12 to 18 months in December, could be expedited...

 

[ORD_Buckeye]

If the TX package goes to the Pac 10, my revised hopes for the Big Ten would be to pick up Missouri, Nebraska and Colorado from the B12, the domers and Syracuse or Rutgers. We'd have a contiguous conference stretching from the Atlantic Ocean to the Rocky Mountains and including the 1, 3, 4, 11, 15, 16, 18, 21, 22, 25, 31, 32, 33, 34, 39 and 41 television markets, plus the national pull of the domers games on NBC.

3 of the top 4 (Pac 16 would have 1)
10 of the top 25 (8)
15 of the top 40 (10)

 

[OSU_D/]

If the TX package goes to the Pac 10, my revised hopes for the Big Ten would be to pick up Missouri, Nebraska and Colorado from the B12, the domers and Syracuse or Rutgers. We'd have a contiguous conference stretching from the Atlantic Ocean to the Rocky Mountains and including the 1, 3, 4, 11, 15, 16, 18, 21, 22, 25, 31, 32, 33, 34, 39 and 41 television markets, plus the national pull of the domers games on NBC.

3 of the top 4 (Pac 16 would have 1)
10 of the top 25 (8)
15 of the top 40 (10)

Any room for a Maryland or Georgia Tech in your vision? Only by dumping Missouri. I am just thinking in terms of recruiting grounds, population and population shifts. While not delivering all of Georgia and Atlanta, we'd pick up a lot more with Atl's population than combined St Louis and KC via Missouri. Plus recruits would have better access to the BTN in Georgia and Maryland. These states are becoming more visible in Tressel's recruiting efforts year after year.

 

[buckeyesin07]

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.

Ask yourself what the reluctance, as you term it, is based upon. At this point, you're arguing over semantics rather than addressing the point. Let me make it easier for you--see post #2822.

 

[CincyInterloper]

<snip>

That also probably sent a good message to South Bend to not try any of their crazy sh!t...pull their piece out on the lanes...or the Big Ten would take it from them, shove it up their ass and pull the trigger until it goes click.

Jesus...

 

[PlanetFrnd]

Jesus...

You said it, man....



It's my understanding that Colorado doesn't meet academic standards for the Big 10....

 

[ORD_Buckeye]

[quote='BusNative;171255;8]You said it, man....



It's my understanding that Colorado doesn't meet academic standards for the Big 10....[/quote]

They're AAU and have a better USN&WR ranking than either Missouri or Nebraska. They're similar to A&M, but with a much nicer campus and none of A&M crazy bullsh!t.

 

[calibuck]

Have read in numerous sports articles that the Big XII is putting the pressure on Nebraska to 'put up or shut up' on whether they are staying or going. No word on Mizzu, but if Nebraska goes, then Texas will run into the Pac Ten's arms, along with most of the Big XII, effectively gutting that conference (again - used to be the SouthWest conference).

This is quite alot like corporate raider-type take-overs, and exciting. Does anyone know if the Big X has given any pledge so Nebraska says 'NO"?

:gobucks3::gobucks4:

 

[jwinslow]

They're AAU and have a better USN&WR ranking than either Missouri or Nebraska. They're similar to A&M, but with a much nicer campus and none of A&M crazy bullsh!t.

They also fit in nicely with the alcohol quota of Wisconsin, Ohio State, Michigan State, etc.

 

[Jake]

Bring on Nebraska, Missouri, and Syracuse now. Create two divisions and institute a championship game. That'll get the financial ball rolling.

Continue working on Notre Dame and Texas. If the State of Texas insists on Tech, Aggie and Baylor coming along for the ride, wish them luck elsewhere. Switch focus then to Notre Dame and Boston College. Pass on Rutgers.

That was easy.