• Follow us on Twitter @buckeyeplanet and @bp_recruiting, like us on Facebook! Enjoy a post or article, recommend it to others! BP is only as strong as its community, and we only promote by word of mouth, so share away!
  • Consider registering! Fewer and higher quality ads, no emails you don't want, access to all the forums, download game torrents, private messages, polls, Sportsbook, etc. Even if you just want to lurk, there are a lot of good reasons to register!

Big Ten and other Conference Expansion

Which Teams Should the Big Ten Add? (please limit to four selections)

  • Boston College

    Votes: 32 10.2%
  • Cincinnati

    Votes: 19 6.1%
  • Connecticut

    Votes: 6 1.9%
  • Duke

    Votes: 21 6.7%
  • Georgia Tech

    Votes: 55 17.6%
  • Kansas

    Votes: 46 14.7%
  • Maryland

    Votes: 67 21.4%
  • Missouri

    Votes: 90 28.8%
  • North Carolina

    Votes: 39 12.5%
  • Notre Dame

    Votes: 209 66.8%
  • Oklahoma

    Votes: 78 24.9%
  • Pittsburgh

    Votes: 45 14.4%
  • Rutgers

    Votes: 40 12.8%
  • Syracuse

    Votes: 18 5.8%
  • Texas

    Votes: 121 38.7%
  • Vanderbilt

    Votes: 15 4.8%
  • Virginia

    Votes: 47 15.0%
  • Virginia Tech

    Votes: 62 19.8%
  • Stay at 12 teams and don't expand

    Votes: 27 8.6%
  • Add some other school(s) not listed

    Votes: 25 8.0%

  • Total voters
    313
BuckeyeMike80;2000760; said:
:lol:

So playing the Big Ten schedule at the time is equivalent to playing 5 Ohio Wesleyan's?

Any serious conversation ends with that observation. BTW they played USC that year - you know USC - a school that has 11 recognized national championships, 4 of which came BEFORE your clearly incorrect 70 years ago timeframe.

Try again. Actually don't. please.

You misinterpreted.

In the 15 years prior we played the following:

Fort Knox
NYU
Western Reserve
Ohio Wesleyan
Mount Union
Wittenberg
Muskingom
Kenyon
Denison
Drake

And USC was 5-5-1 that season. I made no reference to how relevant they were 20 years prior to that or 20 years after that.
 
Upvote 0
kn1f3party;2000773; said:
You misinterpreted.

In the 15 years prior we played the following:

Fort Knox
NYU
Western Reserve
Ohio Wesleyan
Mount Union
Wittenberg
Muskingom
Kenyon
Denison
Drake

And USC was 5-5-1 that season. I made no reference to how relevant they were 20 years prior to that or 20 years after that.

You didn't list any of those teams in your post minus Ft. Knox. How the hell were we supposed to know what you were talking about when you also listed USC (a Top-5 program ALL TIME) and the rest of the Big Ten schedule?
 
Upvote 0
kn1f3party;2000743; said:
The way the system is now basically preserves the postseason to fewer teams than exist in the NFL. Is anybody getting tired of the same dozen or so schools yet?

As long as Ohio State continues to be one of those dozen schools, I don't give a shit. :wink2:
 
Upvote 0
Dryden;2000776; said:
As long as Ohio State continues to be one of those dozen schools, I don't give a shit. :wink2:

Yeah I really don't have any inclination to watch Purdue play Kansas in the Orange Bowl anytime soon....

or Syracuse playing Vanderbilt in the Sugar Bowl....

Or USF playing Washington State anywhere.....
 
Upvote 0
BB73;2000761; said:
That's the 1942 schedule. FYI, Iowa Pre-Flight was prety good - they beat tOSU in the 1943 season opener and went on to finish second in the nation, receiving 12 first place votes in the Final AP poll. World War Two impacted a lot of football programs, and created some temporary powers in military training schools.

Kind of only reinforces my point. It took something like World War to drastically change the landscape and open things up for a lot of programs.

BuckeyeMike80;2000763; said:
What the hell are you talking about??

Ever heard of Steve Young? How about LaVell Edwards??

How about Washington under Don James? They were fairly dominant in the 80s and 90s (which BTW, is about when Cryami and Florida showed up, unless they don't count either in your factually challenged observations)....

Georgia Tech? Umm John Heisman? Ever heard of him?

And while Colorado was never a year in and year out contender, they've historically (meaning in the past 40 years or so) been much better more consistently than they have since Gary Barnett ruined the program.

Check your history.

You aren't reading what I'm writing or maybe I'm not being clear. Boise State is a more competitive program than all of them and has been for nearly a decade. How many more decades of them having exceptional seasons and the others being mediocre does it take until they're even in your eyes?
 
Upvote 0
Dryden;2000776; said:
As long as Ohio State continues to be one of those dozen schools, I don't give a [Mark May]. :wink2:

BuckeyeMike80;2000777; said:
Yeah I really don't have any inclination to watch Purdue play Kansas in the Orange Bowl anytime soon....

or Syracuse playing Vanderbilt in the Sugar Bowl....

Or USF playing Washington State anywhere.....

We're kind of getting off topic here and drifting toward playoff discussion. But obviously I care about what is best for Ohio State. But on a secondary level, I care about the integrity and legitemacy of the league they play in and it is hard for me to buy in to the national championship of FBS football when it is more about producing television revenue than actually determining the best team that season. It is hard for me to teach my children the morals there. That it doesn't matter how great of a team you're on, if you aren't on the wealthy team or the team with the most tradition you can't be a champion. It doesn't really matter how well you play. You're invisible in your league and you're only there to be a doormat for the rich and powerful. If you do start to rise out of your squalor, they'll just create a dozen barricades and twice as many excuses as to why you don't belong.
 
Upvote 0
kn1f3party;2000783; said:
We're kind of getting off topic here and drifting toward playoff discussion. But obviously I care about what is best for Ohio State. But on a secondary level, I care about the integrity and legitemacy of the league they play in and it is hard for me to buy in to the national championship of FBS football when it is more about producing television revenue than actually determining the best team that season. It is hard for me to teach my children the morals there. That it doesn't matter how great of a team you're on, if you aren't on the wealthy team or the team with the most tradition you can't be a champion. It doesn't really matter how well you play. You're invisible in your league and you're only there to be a doormat for the rich and powerful. If you do start to rise out of your squalor, they'll just create a dozen barricades and twice as many excuses as to why you don't belong.

Perhaps I'm not being clear.

The same dozen or so teams that are there year in and year out recently (Florida, USC, Ohio State, Alabama, Texas, Oklahoma etc) have been there for quite a while.

It's the newcomers that need to stick around for many of us to see them as anything but a flash in the pan.

And you seem to be conveniently skipping over the fact that Boysee State hasn't played in a legit conference until this year.
 
Upvote 0
kn1f3party;2000779; said:
K
You aren't reading what I'm writing or maybe I'm not being clear. Boise State is a more competitive program than all of them and has been for nearly a decade. How many more decades of them having exceptional seasons and the others being mediocre does it take until they're even in your eyes?

To answer your question - never.

College football is about tradition. Unless some of the mediocre schools de-establish football as a program, the newcomers won't ever truly eclipse them in terms of history or tradition.
 
Upvote 0
BuckeyeMike80;2000788; said:
It's the newcomers that need to stick around for many of us to see them as anything but a flash in the pan.

And you seem to be conveniently skipping over the fact that Boysee State hasn't played in a legit conference until this year.

They weren't even 1A 16 years ago. They've arguably gone as fast as they can to get where they are. And 10 years ago if someone said the Mountain West was legit you'd die of laughter.

Geography is a bitch, but who is going to take them that is legit.

There is unfair and then there is fucked up.

Life is unfair, I can accept that. But a team that has an argument for being in the mix for a championship being completely left out year after year, with no chance of joining a bigger conference because of population density, geography, and academics, is fucked up.
 
Upvote 0
BuckeyeMike80;2000789; said:
To answer your question - never.

College football is about tradition. Unless some of the mediocre schools de-establish football as a program, the newcomers won't ever truly eclipse them in terms of history or tradition.

Thank you! You've proven my point, finally. National championships, being the champion in the football bowl subdivision, are awarded based more on history and traditional than actual competitiveness.

Unless you say competitiveness among only those with history and tradition.

Either way, it is reserved for the few and the way the money goes around makes sure it stays that way.

Call me old fashioned, but I think any team, on any given Saturday, should have a shot. If they don't, why bother watching or playing?
 
Upvote 0
kn1f3party;2000791; said:
Life is unfair, I can accept that. But a team that has an argument for being in the mix for a championship being completely left out year after year, with no chance of joining a bigger conference because of population density, geography, and academics, is fucked up.

No, actually, that is reality.

A team not getting a shot because no one likes the color of their stupid fucking field would be fucked up.

All of those things you listed are perfectly legitimate reasons to exclude any team from serious consideration for pretty much anything (joining a conference, going to a bowl game, getting a TV network, getting a shot at the title, scheduling home-and-home series, etc.).

If anything, college football has went out of its way to give upshots like Boise a chance they don't deserve because they are the flavor of the decade. All of the things you listed will bring them crashing back down to earth eventually.
 
Upvote 0
kn1f3party;2000756; said:
No, I meant 70... Look at these world beaters we climbed to get there.

Fort Knox
IU (7-3)
USC (5-5-1)
Purdue (1-8)
Northwestern (1-9)
Pittsburgh (3-6)
Illinois (6-4)
Michigan (7-3)
Iowa Pre-Flight (7-3)

Not sure how different that is from the Mountain West of today. Obviously the game has changed quite a bit, but our only tough opponent that year was Wisconsin and we lost to them.

Picking a war year isn't exactly playing a trump card, but yeah...
 
Upvote 0
Can we limit these inane trips down collegefootballmemorylane to the modern era, please? I don't want any sniveling, closeted, coke-head Yale-ies flaming the board with talk of being one of the all-time great programs. Try 1950-present, thanks.
 
Upvote 0
cincibuck;2000798; said:
Picking a war year isn't exactly playing a trump card, but yeah...

Was going off the first championship--which Boise State is seeking. I guess if we have the draft, another major world war, etc, they would have a shot? I don't know.

Buckeye86;2000797; said:
If anything, college football has went out of its way to give upshots like Boise a chance they don't deserve because they are the flavor of the decade. All of the things you listed will bring them crashing back down to earth eventually.

This is not true. The BCS had to have the federal government asking questions before they considered any changes that would benefit them. Even still, they made them temporary and still fairly impossible at giving them a shot because there are 2 idiots for every rational person ranking these teams.
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0
Back
Top