Big Ten and other Conference Expansion

[BuckTwenty]

I don't see why Barry Alvarez sees the need to "turn up the heat" on Big Ten expansion. I know there's not a timetable for this decision, but let's have some patience. If there isn't a school that isn't shining like a beacon for expansion (like Penn State was), then we are making a mistake as a conference.

 

[OSU_D/]

Wisconsin Ad Barry Alvarez says Big Ten will amplify call for a 12th team - ESPN Alvarez, the former longtime Badgers football coach, said the conference already has investigated possibilities for expansion "from all over the country."

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.

I know my top two choices will never happen.... but I'd want one of the UT's..... Toronto or Texas.

Toronto would join the Big 10 in many sports immediately. For football they would have a time table, probably start in DII or FCS and in X years time come join the Big 10 for that sport as well.

Texas (according to some the conference has actually spoken to UT) probably wouldn't be able to come b/c of the political pressure back home. But UT's OOC schedule would prob include OU, TAMU and 2 directional schools from somewhere in the nation. The longest distance to UT is shorter than the longest 2 school travel distance in the ACC, Mountain West and I think Pac 10 too.

Yes, yes. Contingous state rules apply... but I believe a unanimous vote would override that rule. There is a reason why the Big 10 has actually had conversations with schools that don't touch current member states - b/c they know they can get around the contiguous state rule.

 

[sepia5]

I know my top two choices will never happen.... but I'd want one of the UT's..... Toronto or Texas.

Toronto would join the Big 10 in many sports immediately. For football they would have a time table, probably start in DII or FCS and in X years time come join the Big 10 for that sport as well.

Texas (according to some the conference has actually spoken to UT) probably wouldn't be able to come b/c of the political pressure back home. But UT's OOC schedule would prob include OU, TAMU and 2 directional schools from somewhere in the nation. The longest distance to UT is shorter than the longest 2 school travel distance in the ACC, Mountain West and I think Pac 10 too.

Yes, yes. Contingous state rules apply... but I believe a unanimous vote would override that rule. There is a reason why the Big 10 has actually had conversations with schools that don't touch current member states - b/c they know they can get around the contiguous state rule.

Aside from geography, I honestly don't think there's a better choice than Texas. I know that sounds crazy, but supposedly it has been considered, and, if I'm not mistaken, there have been some Texas fans on here that spoke favorably of the possibility. I think a lot of the Longhorn community has always wanted to be part of a better academic conference, and joining the Big Ten makes more sense than the Pac-10 and ACC.

 

[mb7015a]

Assuming expansion happens, why would there need to be permanent divisions? Why not reorganize the divisions each year based on the finish of the previous year?

Yes, given the history, there is a high chance of title game rematches, but the Big 12 and SEC still make omelettes filled with money when they happen.

 

[methomps]

I know my top two choices will never happen.... but I'd want one of the UT's..... Toronto or Texas.

Toronto would join the Big 10 in many sports immediately. For football they would have a time table, probably start in DII or FCS and in X years time come join the Big 10 for that sport as well.

Texas (according to some the conference has actually spoken to UT) probably wouldn't be able to come b/c of the political pressure back home. But UT's OOC schedule would prob include OU, TAMU and 2 directional schools from somewhere in the nation. The longest distance to UT is shorter than the longest 2 school travel distance in the ACC, Mountain West and I think Pac 10 too.

Yes, yes. Contingous state rules apply... but I believe a unanimous vote would override that rule. There is a reason why the Big 10 has actually had conversations with schools that don't touch current member states - b/c they know they can get around the contiguous state rule.

Given the trend in ut's scheduling of ooc opponents, I don't see this happening

 

[buckiprof]

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 do realize that when the Big 10 university presidents voted the last time on whether or not to extend an invitation to ND to join the conference that the vote was very close. The reason for the closeness of the vote was the pathetic state of ND graduate school.

Whereas YOU might think one way, unless you are the president of a Big 10 university (people who actually look at the whole picture where academics are pretty important....it's not just about athletics) what you think doesn't really matter.

All that matter is what the people who actually vote believe....university presidents.

And you keep mentioning Rutgers, Syracuse, Missouri.....do you know the state of their respective graduate programs? Are they better or worse than ND's?

 

[JXC]

LSU in 2007 got bumped from 7 to 2.

Right, but that's not because they won their CCG, it's because everyone else ahead of them lost. There were no 1 loss teams left, and they were the best 2 loss team, with both losses in overtime. Had they not had a CCG, they still would have been 2nd.

College football has been this way every since I started watching. Early wins move you up more than late wins. Late losses move you down more than early losses. So win a big game early, and then don't play anybody that can beat you late, and you'll be in the top #2.

The only way I could see a CCG helping a team is if that team is #3, and they are going to play #2 or #1 in the CCG. It doesn't help the conference get a team in the NCG, because without the CCG, the top 2 team would already be in the NCG. But it helped the team that's #3 be able to jump the team that is #2 or #1. But what sucks is if this game is a rematch.

If Ohio State and Michigan were in separate divisions, 2006 would have done this. If in 2006, Ohio State had lost to Michigan in a CCG, we'd likely have stayed home, where Florida would have played Michigan in the NCG. Fair? Maybe, that's what happens in sports. But it doesn't help you as a team.

I'm not saying I do or don't want a CCG, but I'm just saying it hurt the conference when trying to get teams into a NCG. If you want to argue that it helps teams win bowl games, then fine. That's opinion, and you can't really prove that. People want to blame 2006 and 2007 on long layoffs. We have won bowl games before. It isn't the layoff. Don't blame the layoff, blame the coaching staff/team. What's what loses you bowl games. Or congratulate the other coaching staff/team, because they did a better job. Now, having the bowl game in the home state of the team you are going to go play...that's a reason why it may be tougher to win.

I feel like I have heard quite a few people express not wanting a playoff. Doesn't a CCG hurt the regular season just like a playoff would? Why does a team that has 3 losses get a chance to play an undefeated team and go to a BCS game? Especially when sometimes this game is a re-match? Texas proved in the regular season they were the best Big 12 team. Why did they have to prove it again? Maybe if the teams have already played, then you don't have a conference championship? Or how about you keep the Big Ten at 11 teams, get the NCAA to allow the Big Ten to play 13 games, and play 10 conference games and 3 non-conference games. To me, that would be the best solution. I'd love to do it as the Pac-10 does. Play everybody. Non-conference games, save the big one every year, suck. 3 is plenty. Play your crap team, play your great team, then play an okay team. Then play 10 conference games. 13 games is fine...teams that have to go to CCG play 13 anyway.

 

[bigdog3300]

Aside from geography, I honestly don't think there's a better choice than Texas. I know that sounds crazy, but supposedly it has been considered, and, if I'm not mistaken, there have been some Texas fans on here that spoke favorably of the possibility. I think a lot of the Longhorn community has always wanted to be part of a better academic conference, and joining the Big Ten makes more sense than the Pac-10 and ACC.

Would love for Texas to join, but.....

I think Toronto would be very attractive to the conference and NCAA's. Moving into Canada equals cash with no competition. This decision is all about making money, and new territory equals that. Their basketball program would be very good, as they already unload tons of 5* talent. The chance for those guys to play together (their AAU team which covers most of Canada is insane) and stay in country while playing big time college ball would be ideal.

Football would take time to develop, but they've got talent up there.

I like the idea of expanding into Canada, and I think those that will be benefiting monetarily from these decisions know that the choice of entering Canada would have some very attractive appeal.

 

[ORD_Buckeye]

I agree with Brick and others in that Notre Dame's strong undergrad reputation and ranking combined with a professed willingness by the faculty to move in a more research/doctoral direction are enough to make them the top choice given their undeniably strong appeal in athletics. That is why I've repeatedly stated that they're the only non-AAU member university that would even be considered for Big Ten membership.

Buckeye Mike, however, touches on another issue that came up in the wake of Notre Dame's rejection of the Big Ten's offer a decade ago: bad blood. It's not that the domers turned us down. It's that they overruled their own faculty, turned us down for clearly football reasons then lined the priests up at the podium and gave a press conference where they clearly implied that they were too good academically for the Big Ten.

I can assure you from many personal conversations that Notre Dame is persona non grata in Bricker Hall and every other Big Ten+Chicago administration building and faculty senate. They still might be the top choice, but after the stunt they pulled a decade ago, an offer won't come without a certain level of contrition if not outright groveling on the part of the domers.

For the same reason, the notion that the Big Ten would take them along into a proposed Big Ten Hockey Conference is a non-starter. It's all sports or no sports and no speical treatment. Take it or leave it domers.

 

[ORD_Buckeye]

I don't see why Barry Alvarez sees the need to "turn up the heat" on Big Ten expansion. I know there's not a timetable for this decision, but let's have some patience. If there isn't a school that isn't shining like a beacon for expansion (like Penn State was), then we are making a mistake as a conference.

Alvarez can run his mouth all he wants. The reality is that the athletic directors are fourth or fifth on the list of people who will have input into this decision. We're not the SEC.

 

[DaveyBoy]

I'm not saying I do or don't want a CCG, but I'm just saying it hurt the conference when trying to get teams into a NCG. If you want to argue that it helps teams win bowl games, then fine. That's opinion, and you can't really prove that. People want to blame 2006 and 2007 on long layoffs. We have won bowl games before. It isn't the layoff. Don't blame the layoff, blame the coaching staff/team. What's what loses you bowl games. Or congratulate the other coaching staff/team, because they did a better job. Now, having the bowl game in the home state of the team you are going to go play...that's a reason why it may be tougher to win.

in my opinion, the bigger factor isn't the long layoff as much as it's the tradition of OHio State vs Michigan being so grand and so engrossing that those teams usually don't play well in bowls that are for all the marbles. Of course this may be just pure coincidence, but I think the sheer quantity of times it's happened begs consideration as a tangible factor....

Ohio State Rose Bowls in 1973, 74, 75....
Ohio State NCGs...UF 2006

Michigan Rose Bowls in 1978, 1979, 1981, 1987

It goes against my grain to question the value of The Game, but essentially that was our team's emotional NCG in 2006 and I think it contributed more to the utter sleepwalking vs UF than anything.

 

[Mike80]

For the same reason, the notion that the Big Ten would take them along into a proposed Big Ten Hockey Conference is a non-starter. It's all sports or no sports and no speical treatment. Take it or leave it domers.

 

[ORD_Buckeye]

The biggest catalyst is the B10 network. They need the programming and have the revenue to make this happen. Ohio State is STRONGLY for it. UM, MSU, and Wiscy are moderately in favor. Minny is the only hold up due to their strong rivalries with a number of in-state schools and UND.

Sticking point is that, even if Minny comes around (and they will), B10 still doesn't have enough D1 teams to form an NCAA conference. Penn State, Purdue and Illinois would need to transition their club programs to D1.

The talk is that the Big Ten would take a few CCHA schools along to meet the minimum number of schools with Notre Dame mentioned most. I think the bad blood is so strong towards ND, that there's no way that we would bring them in. Other schools mentioned are Fredo, Lake Superior State and one of the directional Michigans. Not sure what they'd see in this since they are clearly NEVER going to be extended Big Ten membership and would most likely be kicked to the curb as soon as PSU/Ill/Purdue are ready.

An 8 team (9 if ND joins) Big Ten conference would be outstanding. Full round-robin home and home weekends, with all the games on the B10 network. Moving to a smaller conference would also allow the B10 schools more schedule space to play national OOC schedules. We'd be the center of the college hockey universe.

 

[muffler dragon]

Notre Dame is still better than Rutgers, Syracuse, and Missouri and would still be near the top of the Big Ten academically, and to deny that is foolish.

1) I'm not arguing for anyone else. Nice non sequitur though.
2) I'm neither a fool nor foolish. Be careful with your words. That's another non sequitur.

 

[JXC]

in my opinion, the bigger factor isn't the long layoff as much as it's the tradition of OHio State vs Michigan being so grand and so engrossing that those teams usually don't play well in bowls that are for all the marbles. Of course this may be just pure coincidence, but I think the sheer quantity of times it's happened begs consideration as a tangible factor....

Ohio State Rose Bowls in 1973, 74, 75....
Ohio State NCGs...UF 2006

Michigan Rose Bowls in 1978, 1979, 1981, 1987

It goes against my grain to question the value of The Game, but essentially that was our team's emotional NCG in 2006 and I think it contributed more to the utter sleepwalking vs UF than anything.

Okay...I think this is bogus, but if I go along with it, then wouldn't this mean that the winning of the OSU/Mich game would lose in the CCG, because of the drain that the week prior left them? Or are you proposing to get rid of Ohio State vs. Michigan?

I don't agree with Ohio State v. Michigan causing the winner to lose in the bowl game. If you are a NC type team, you can win more than one big game in a row.

I don't understand why people try and try and try to find reason why we lost in certain years. There is no reason we lost those years other than the overall fact that we weren't the best team. Sometimes you win, and sometimes you lose. It has little to do with Michgian, and it has little to do with layoff.