Big Ten and other Conference Expansion

[NateG]

you're right, the sports thing is really the only aspect of it i was wondering about. i guess i just feel like a lot of people's dislike for ND would prevent them from wanting them in the conference no matter what the circumstances

Have you not met a scUM or State Penn fan? I think that it would build a better rep for the Big10 in sports win or lose for them. Another team for recruits to play consistently that always is in the media storm regardless of their win/loss record.

On the scUM-OSU rivalry. You have to keep them together, similar to OKLA-Tex. If ND, IOWA, Wisky, Ill, Minn, NU were the west, then scUM, OSU, State Penn, Purdue, Mich St, Ind would be the East. In similar fashion to the B12 the east seems stronger but ND, Iowa, Wisky usually are in the mix somehow and Ill, NU and Minn are once every 3-4 year programs that could shock you. Gives the conference a 6th viable canidate in the conference. Would be a good mix.

 

[mross34]

On the scUM-OSU rivalry. You have to keep them together, similar to OKLA-Tex. If ND, IOWA, Wisky, Ill, Minn, NU were the west, then scUM, OSU, State Penn, Purdue, Mich St, Ind would be the East. In similar fashion to the B12 the east seems stronger but ND, Iowa, Wisky usually are in the mix somehow and Ill, NU and Minn are once every 3-4 year programs that could shock you. Gives the conference a 6th viable canidate in the conference. Would be a good mix.

How would scheduling work at that point?

I'm assuming 8 conference games as there are now.

Play every team in your division once a year, and have a team that you play in the other division every year as well? Rotate the last two games between the 5 other teams in the opposing conference.

OSU-Illinois - Illibuck
Notre Dame-Michigan - Obvious one
Iowa-Penn State - Been playing some heated games recently
Wisconsin-Michigan State - If they can't play Michigan, they might as well get Sparty, right?
Minnesota-Indiana
Purdue-Northwestern

It seems like you're sticking Notre Dame in a position where they're joining a conference they have several rivals in (Michigan State, Michigan, Purdue), but they won't get the chance to play them more than once every other year at most?

 

[NateG]

Well if their is a different way then to do either north/south or east/west. It would be good to help all teams out but certain things happen when you join a conference.

E/W
East-OSU, PSU, scUM, MSU, Ind, Pur
west- ND, Wisky, Iowa, Minn, NU, ILL

N/S-Iowa and ND would need placed.
North- Wisc, Minn, NU, MSU, scUM,
South- Ind, ILL, OSU, PSU, Pur

N/S you add rematch possibility on The Game in Back to Back weeks.

If there is a better way to split then I'm for it. I would need OSU and scUM in the same division due to the above reason, and PSU would come along because of their location. Then scheduling would be 5 games against your division and 3 of the 6 from the other division on some kind of rotating schedule.

 

[JXC]

Strictly for football, adding a 12 team would be bad for the Big Ten, namely the top schools trying to get national championships. Having a conference championship game makes it more difficult for your conference to get a team into the NCG, not easier. The Big 12 almost lost a NCG participant this year because of a CCG. If the SEC didn't have a CCG, then Alabama and Florida would have likely played in the NCG both in 2008, and 2009. Instead they have a CGG, which eliminates one of these teams from being in the top 2.

90% of the time all a CCG does it take your best team in the conference, and give them one more chance to be upset. In 2006, Ohio State was already #1, they then would have had to play another game, and this would have given them another chance to lose. Same thing in 2002. Heck in 2007 we just sat home and watched everybody lose ahead of us. Where if we had a CCG, maybe we would have ended up playing Illinois again. Just another chance to lose, and not get in the NCG. Because if we win, it doesn't help us any. But losing would have left us out of the NCG.

When it comes to being this late in the season, rarely does a win move you up in the rankings. Pollsters already have their mind set on you, and the only way you move up very late in the season is by a team ahead of you losing. So you are going to move up whether or not you play in a conference championship game. It may not be fair, but the best thing you can do once you reach #1 or #2 in the polls, is not play!

I can think of no instance in the BCS era where a team has lost the chance at a NGC because their conference didn't have a CCG. As mentioned above, in the past two years this has hurt the SEC. In 2008 Alabama was #1 after the end of the regular season, and this year Florida was #1, yet neither of them played in the NCG because of having to play and losing in a CCG. In 2007 #1 Missouri lost a chance at a NCG because of losing a CCG. In 2003 Oklahoma was ranked #1, they lost in their CCG, but lucky for them they still got a shot at the NCG. In 2001 #2 Tennessee lost the chance at a NCG because of losing a CCG. In 1998 Kansas State was #2 entering it's CCG, they lost, allowing FSU to go instead of them (should have been Ohio State ).

Money wise, a CCG is great. It brings in money. Excitement wise it is great, too. But all a CCG does is make your best team play in a semi-final for a chance at a NCG. And if you have both the #1 and #2 teams, then it takes away the chance of both of them being able to play for the NCG. A CCG may be more fair, but as far as getting teams into NCG, it hurts a conference more than helps.

 

[BRICKtamland]

Well if their is a different way then to do either north/south or east/west. It would be good to help all teams out but certain things happen when you join a conference.

E/W
East-OSU, PSU, scUM, MSU, Ind, Pur
west- ND, Wisky, Iowa, Minn, NU, ILL

N/S-Iowa and ND would need placed.
North- Wisc, Minn, NU, MSU, scUM,
South- Ind, ILL, OSU, PSU, Pur

N/S you add rematch possibility on The Game in Back to Back weeks.

If there is a better way to split then I'm for it. I would need OSU and scUM in the same division due to the above reason, and PSU would come along because of their location. Then scheduling would be 5 games against your division and 3 of the 6 from the other division on some kind of rotating schedule.

Unfortunately if the Big Ten were split into East/West the East would include the Big Ten's 3 best programs in Ohio State, Penn State, and Michigan.

 

[BRICKtamland]

You keep posting the same basic message and I wonder if you have read any of the replies. Academically comes in two different areas: undergraduate and graduate.

I have read every reply and I understand everything that has been said perfectly well. I don't think the currently sub-par Graduate school is a good enough reason to turn them down considering how great the undergrad programs are, and the fact that IF they were to join the Big Ten their grad program would be certain to improve. And football wise, it would create for more money, another quality program, and exciting match ups. I honestly don't see the down side. It would be a mistake, IMO, to add a school like Rutgers, Syracuse, or Missouri because they would add nothing of value to the conference.

 

[NateG]

When it comes to being this late in the season, rarely does a win move you up in the rankings.

I can think of no instance in the BCS era where a team has lost the chance at a NGC because their conference didn't have a CCG.

LSU in 2007 got bumped from 7 to 2.

 

[NateG]

Unfortunately if the Big Ten were split into East/West the East would include the Big Ten's 3 best programs in Ohio State, Penn State, and Michigan.

Possibly but you'd either do this or have the chance that OSU-scUM happens twice in many years (Most years back to back).

I personally think at the level all programs are at right now, there is an argument that OSU, PSU, and scUM match up with Iowa, Wisky, and ND. If ND is on the rise then great for the west.

For the sake of this year per the Big Ten Standings...

OSU-E
Iowa-W
PSU-E
NU-W
Wisky-W
MSU-E
Pur-E
(ND would be about here)-W
Minn-W
Ill-W
scUM-E
Ind-E

All but the last four are even and overall the west would have ended stronger.

08-East top/bottom, west middle teams (ND 6-6)
07-pretty even-OSU,ILL,scUM,Wisc,PSU,Iowa (ND 3-9)
06-pretty even-OSU,Wisc,scUM,PSU,Pur,Minn (ND 10-2)
05-pretty even-PSU,OSU,Wisc,Iowa,scUM,NU,Minn (ND 9-2)
04-pretty even-Iowa,scUM,Wisc,NU,OSU,Pur (ND 6-6)
03-East heavy at top-scUM,OSU,Pur,Iowa,Minn,MSU (ND 5-7)
02-East heavy at top-OSU, Iowa, scUM, PSU, Pur, ILL (10-2)

So if ND showed up half the time like they have, the sides would be slightly East heavy. But if they were a 8,9,10 win team then the West would have just as consistent teams to even out the divisions similar to the SEC.

 

[TheIronColonel]

I have read every reply and I understand everything that has been said perfectly well. I don't think the currently sub-par Graduate school is a good enough reason to turn them down considering how great the undergrad programs are, and the fact that IF they were to join the Big Ten their grad program would be certain to improve. And football wise, it would create for more money, another quality program, and exciting match ups. I honestly don't see the down side. It would be a mistake, IMO, to add a school like Rutgers, Syracuse, or Missouri because they would add nothing of value to the conference.

You're welcome to your opinion, but the bottom line is that your opinion doesn't matter; in addition, the university presidents and conference officials have all expressed an opinion contrary to yours, and they make the decisions.

I think very few people are saying that it wouldn't be nice to have ND in the Big Ten (some, but not that many). The point, however, is that it won't happen unless the policy at the top changes (or gets bent to make an exception).

You're also arguing against a point that, as far as I can tell, nobody is making: nobody wants Syracuse, Rutgers, or Missouri. As far as I can tell, Pitt is the leading candidate; if you want ND not Pitt, fine, but argue against that.

 

[DaveyBoy]

90% of the time all a CCG does it take your best team in the conference, and give them one more chance to be upset. In 2006, Ohio State was already #1, they then would have had to play another game, and this would have given them another chance to lose.

all great points, but in my opinion had Ohio State not had a 56 day layoff between UM and UF we would have played a lot better against UF. Also, the way things are now, it appears that scaling the Mt.Michigan summit at the end of the year makes it difficult for OSU to get up again for its next game. By having to play a CCG after that, perhaps that mentality of not having to be in a continuation mode that has caused some damned good OSU teams dating back to Woody's 1970s teams to lay eggs in their bowl games.

I see advantages/disadvantages to both. But a CCG would be one wild weekend in BigTen country.

 

[JDMBuckeye]

I agree in the sense that the Big10 champ would have one more chance at being upset. But i think it would add to the competitiveness of the Conference.

 

[DaveyBoy]

I agree in the sense that the Big10 champ would have one more chance at being upset. But i think it would add to the competitiveness of the Conference.

translated for the rest of the CFB world outside of Buckeye nation:

"being upset in the CCG would spare the NCG of another in a series of blowouts"

I'm sorry, but not playing a CCG because your #1 team could get upset and knocked out of a NCG smells like fear to me. I admire teams that put their titles on the line 2 or 3 games in a row like the SEC and Big12 teams do. Granted, OSU also does that to an extent by playing strong OOC competition....but those are in the beginning of the year with a little less at stake than in late November or early December.

The BigTen has a true image problem right now that can only be cured by going out and kicking butt. I wouldn't mind giving our Buckeyes one more game against a great competitor...even if it's a team we've beaten in OT already like Iowa. It would certainly give the rest of the nation a good show and perhaps bring some more respect back to our conference.

 

[jwinslow]

The BigTen has a true image problem right now that can only be cured by going out and kicking butt.

And the notion that a CCG proves anything in that regard is a fallacy. The ACC's CCG does not add any credibility to that weak conference. The b12's CCG typically is more of a joke than asset. The SEC's CCG is good, but that's because of the track record of the teams involved. If they went on to lose their bowl games, the CCG would not be the high profile game it is.

Playing Iowa or Michigan again doesn't change what folks think of the big ten.

Winning BCS bowls does (since that is the measuring stick, see 06 when the b10 was embarrassed by the sec supposedly, despite the 2-1 record).

 

[Mike80]

They don't necessarily have to split along geographical lines.

Since it's the upper midwest there at least a plurality of the NHL fans reside, they could split up the divisions much like the old NHL conferences were set up. Instead of East and West or North and South they could do this:

Woody Hayes division:

Ohio State
Michigan
Minnesota
Wisconsin
Northwestern
Indiana

Joe Paterno division:

Penn State
Ntre Ame
Michigan State
Iowa
Illinois
Purdue

The teams could be flipped around a bit, but keeping Ohio State paired with Michigan and Penn State paired with a hypothetical Ntre Ame membership would be easier in this set up. And of course we don't have to name it after Paterno, we could name it the Rockne Division or maybe the Butkus division or something.

 

[Muck]

They don't necessarily have to split along geographical lines.

Beat me to it.

I recall someone using the terms "land" & "lakes" in the past for a mythical Big10+2.

Personally I'd rather see a more radical choice...add the University of Toronto.