Big Ten and other Conference Expansion

[MililaniBuckeye]

Expansion ain't happenin'...

 

[mb7015a]

Hypothetically, the Land Grant Trophy would see a considerable reduction in prestige as both Penn State and Michigan State would add Rutgers as their second protected game.

 

[Muck]

Maybe I'm just a pedant, but technically OSU and Michigan don't end their season with The Game (well, this year Michigan did). I mean, there are still bowl games to be played (except, of course, for Michigan) after The Game. Yeah, adding a CCG could take a little off The Game (especially if they played an interdivision rivalry game - they could wind up playing in back-to-back weeks). Then again, that might amp up the rivalry even more at the slight expense of The Game.

I remember TSUN playing the Hawaii Rainbows as their last game back in the late 80's early 90's.

 

[LordJeffBuck]

Expansion ain't happenin'...

Expansion + title game = the only way to restore credibility to the Big Ten.

Missouri makes the most sense. Pitt makes some sense, too. But Rutgers? Good lord, no....

Big Ten East
Penn State
Ohio State
Michigan
Michigan State
Indiana
Purdue

Big Ten West
Illinois
Northwestern
Wisconsin
Minnesota
Iowa
Missouri

 

[mross34]

Big Ten East
Penn State
Ohio State
Michigan
Michigan State
Indiana
Purdue

You don't have a problem putting Penn State, Ohio State and Michigan in the same division?

 

[muffler dragon]

I'm not so much opposed to the idea of expansion as I am the idea of the make-up of the conference championship game being between teams from each division. It should be the two best teams period.

 

[PlanetFrnd]

Expansion + title game = the only way to restore credibility to the Big Ten.

I tend to think title games are for shit, actually. The only time I can remember not having a title game being a big issue was 2007-8 when we slipped into the title game - and even then it was only an issue because of the perception created by the loss to Florida (and subsequently compounded).

A title game certainly isn't helping the B12 this year when the three best teams are all in the same division.

 

[t_BuckeyeScott]

I tend to think title games are for shit, actually. The only time I can remember not having a title game being a big issue was 2007-8 when we slipped into the title game - and even then it was only an issue because of the perception created by the loss to Florida (and subsequently compounded).

A title game certainly isn't helping the B12 this year when the three best teams are all in the same division.

And would be most years in the Big 10 in LJB's proposal.

 

[LordJeffBuck]

You don't have a problem putting Penn State, Ohio State and Michigan in the same division?

No, it just gives OSU and PSU and guaranteed win every year....

Seriously, Oklahoma, Texas, and Texas Tech are in Big 12 South; Georgia, Florida, and Tennessee are in the SEC East; Alabama, Auburn, and LSU are in the SEC West. Competition is a good thing ... and Ohio State has to play Michigan and Penn State every year anyway.

As far a balancing the divisions, regardless of the distribution of teams, there will always be the possibility of a "dog" match-up in the title game (Oklahoma vs. Missouri in the Big 12 this year). In fact, the Florida-Alabama "dream" match-up has happened fairly rarely in the history of conference title games, and a lot of the title games have been really ugly affairs - Big 12 championship games; SEC championship game. In that regard, I think that the ACC was stupid for putting Miami and Florida State in separate divisions, apparently with the hope of setting up a regularly-occurring UM-FSU title game (it hasn't happened yet).

 

[t_BuckeyeScott]

No, it just gives OSU and PSU and guaranteed win every year....

Seriously, Oklahoma, Texas, and Texas Tech are in Big 12 South; Georgia, Florida, and Tennessee are in the SEC East; Alabama, Auburn, and LSU are in the SEC West. Competition is a good thing ... and Ohio State has to play Michigan and Penn State every year anyway.

As far a balancing the divisions, regardless of the distribution of teams, there will always be the possibility of a "dog" match-up in the title game (Oklahoma vs. Missouri in the Big 12 this year). In fact, the Florida-Alabama "dream" match-up has happened fairly rarely in the history of conference title games, and a lot of the title games have been really ugly affairs - Big 12 championship games; SEC championship game. In that regard, I think that the ACC was stupid for putting Miami and Florida State in separate divisions, apparently with the hope of setting up a regularly-occurring UM-FSU title game (it hasn't happened yet).

But if the Big 10 West is the same as the Big 12 North then who cares as has been said many times. And the reason it works in the SEC is that both Divisions have a 3 headed monster, not just one. ACC, I have nothing.

 

[LordJeffBuck]

[quote='BusNative;134761;8]I tend to think title games are for shit, actually. The only time I can remember not having a title game being a big issue was 2007-8 when we slipped into the title game - and even then it was only an issue because of the perception created by the loss to Florida (and subsequently compounded).

A title game certainly isn't helping the B12 this year when the three best teams are all in the same division.[/quote]
I think that title games are for shit as well, but here's the national perception of the Big Ten: Play 3 MAC teams and an FCS school, beat up on Purdue, Indiana, Minnesota, Northwestern, etc., maybe get tested by Penn State or Michigan (or Ohio State), go 11-1, sit around for two weeks while all the big boys keep playing, back into a national title game, get blown out by SEC, Big 12, USC, etc. A title game at least gives the appearance of having won something meaningful, and it provides an extra "test" for a team that has serious NC aspirations.

But if the Big 10 West is the same as the Big 12 North then who cares as has been said many times. And the reason it works in the SEC is that both Divisions have a 3 headed monster, not just one. ACC, I have nothing.

Then what would you propose - an exciting annual rivalry game between Penn State and Iowa?

As a Buckeye fan, I want Ohio State playing Penn State, Michigan, and Michigan State every year, and I want them all in the same division so that the regular season standings actually mean something. If Ohio State runs the table in the East and gets stuck playing a #24 ranked Northwestern team in a Big Ten title game, then so be it ... it's still one more game against a "real" opponent with something meaningful on the line.

 

[PlanetFrnd]

A title game at least gives the appearance of having won something meaningful, and it provides an extra "test" for a team that has serious NC aspirations.

I'm really not trying to argue against you because I think we are mostly on the same page here, but... a title game against a 8-4 or 7-5 crappy opponent from the lesser division doesn't do that much, IMHO. The B12 title game didn't mean much for a long time (until Mizzou got better), and the SEC title game was a joke for a long time, too, when the Florida and Tennessee traded titles.

All tOSU had to do to avoid the current perception is to win 1 or both of the last 2 title games... The perception of the team was at an ALL TIME high (or at least a very high water mark) through The Game in 2006...

 

[MililaniBuckeye]

Expansion + title game = the only way to restore credibility to the Big Ten.

The only way to truly restore "credibility" to the Big Ten is to win bowl games. Had we won, or split, the last two NC games, along with the rest of the conference winning the majority of their bowl games, we'd be more highly respected. Even if we had a conference title game, if we keep getting blasted in NC games and not winning the majority of our bowl games, the Big Ten will still get dissed.

Everyone knows conference title games are for money only, plain and simple. Look at the joke that the Big 12 title game has been. In 2005, Texas had to have a rematch with a Colorado team it had already destroyed 42-17 earlier in the regular season to "earn" the conference title (they ended up killing them even worse, 70-3). In 2003, Oklahoma finished 8-0 in conference and yet had to play a Kansas State team that had finished 6-2 in conference...KSU won, and thus were the conference champs despite having a worse conference record. The three best teams in the conference this year (Texas, Oklahoma, and Texas Tech) are in the same division, and the Big 12 title game will have a Missouri that's fucking 5-3 in conference playing for the title while not one but two teams (Texas and Texas Tech) sit out with 7-1 records. Should Mizzu pull off the upset, the "champion" of the Big 12 will have a conference record worse than three other teams in the conference.

Big Ten expansion solves shit...

 

[LordJeffBuck]

[quote='BusNative;134764;7]All tOSU had to do to avoid the current perception is to win 1 or both of the last 2 title games... The perception of the team was at an ALL TIME high (or at least a very high water mark) through The Game in 2006...[/quote]
Agreed, for tOSU ... but the perception of the Big Ten has still been down, and it will continue to go down as the conference continues to decline. And unfortunately, Ohio State gets dragged down with the rest of the conference.

At least a title game would put the Big 10 the champion on an equal footing with the ACC, SEC, and Big 12 winners in terms of games played; it would provide an extra "must win" situation for the eventual champ; and it would improve, however slightly, the winner's strength-of-schedule.

 

[mross34]

[quote='BusNative;134764;7]I'm really not trying to argue against you because I think we are mostly on the same page here, but... a title game against a 8-4 or 7-5 crappy opponent from the lesser division doesn't do that much, IMHO. The B12 title game didn't mean much for a long time (until Mizzou got better), and the SEC title game was a joke for a long time, too, when the Florida and Tennessee traded titles.

All tOSU had to do to avoid the current perception is to win 1 or both of the last 2 title games... The perception of the team was at an ALL TIME high (or at least a very high water mark) through The Game in 2006...[/quote]

I'm not sure if a 7-5 team has ever made a conference title game.