Big Ten and other Conference Expansion

[ORD_Buckeye]

Question: when a university joins the Big 10, does just that campus join, or do its satellite campuses join too? Or how about the university system?

I ask because of schools like Texas and Rutgers. Texas doesn't have a medical school, but UT-Dallas and UT-San Antonio do. Many of Rutgers grad school programs are located at Rutgers-Camden and Rutgers-Newark.

Does the Big 10 currently have any schools like this? I see Penn State's med school is in Hershey and I know their law school (which they just bought) is in Carlisle. Are these schools privy to the same benefits of the CIC and AAU that University Park is?

I think it depends on the state. In a state like Ohio where the system's branch campuses are essentially in-house community colleges (personally think all campuses should give them up and fold them into the CC system), it's not really much of an issue, as they are complete subsidiaries of the main campus. They, however, don't really come into CIC thinking since they aren't home to any grad programs, research or prominent faculty.

At the opposite type of system like Wisconsin, the UW--insert town are really fairly autonomous campuses. They don't play any role in CIC membership. I think Penn State--particularly its law and med schools would be involved in CIC matters.

The only real exception is Illinois--Chicago, which has a full membership due to its being the home to Illinois' med school and a decent research university in its own right.

As far as The Other State Universities in a given system go, they have no membership rights or connection to the CIC. Fredo or Akron are about as connected to the CIC as Boise State.

 

[JXC]

BCS rank week 13-

1.Missouri 11-1
2.West Virginia 11-1
3.Ohio State 11-1
4.Georgia 10-2
5.Kansas 11-1
6.Va Tech 10-2
7.LSU 10-2

BCS week 14

1. OSU 11-1
2. LSU 11-2
3. Va Tech 11-2
4. Oklahoma 11-2
5. Georgia 10-2
6. Missouri 11-2
7. USC 10-2

LSU JUMPED Georgia, Va Tech, and Kansas who did not lose. If LSU would not have played they would not have gotten the push that they did. Georgia and Kansas especially got LEFT OUT of the discussion. Kansas ended 11-1. Okla beat a higher ranked team and got an equal jump to LSU. Va Tech and OKLA won and if LSU didn't play, one would have been in the game. The only reason LSU got their 3rd life was the CCG. Ohio State didn't play and got in but LSU needed that game. Just take out WVU and Mizz and it's OSU vs Georg, Va Tech, or Kansas. So you can disagree if you'd like but facts are facts. The CCG gave the voters one more chance to push in LSU.

What is your problem? I listed many examples. If you want to go all out on this one, LSU, then that's fine. You win, congrats. You found one example where a CCG helped a team, even though I provide many in which it hurts teams. It seems like any time I say anything, you single out one little part of the post, and try to nit pick it. This definitely isn't the first time, and i'm 100% sure about that.

If you really think that CCG's help teams get into NCGs instead of hurts them, then let's hear your case and any examples you have other than LSU. If not, then what is your point? You found one example. I found many. So you didn't disprove my point, just one example of many.

 

[kevnow123]

What is your problem? I listed many examples. If you want to go all out on this one, LSU, then that's fine. You win, congrats. You found one example where a CCG helped a team, even though I provide many in which it hurts teams. It seems like any time I say anything, you single out one little part of the post, and try to nit pick it. This definitely isn't the first time, and i'm 100% sure about that.

If you really think that CCG's help teams get into NCGs instead of hurts them, then let's hear your case and any examples you have other than LSU. If not, then what is your point? You found one example. I found many. So you didn't disprove my point, just one example of many.

The worst part is if you lose, almost 100% of the time, you go down in ranking. I've seen games where a team ranked in the low teens plays hard against a team in the top 5 and yet they go down in the rankings. Losing late always screws you, too.

 

[jwinslow]

The worst part is if you lose, almost 100% of the time, you go down in ranking. I've seen games where a team ranked in the low teens plays hard against a team in the top 5 and yet they go down in the rankings. Losing late always screws you, too.

Huh?

Barring a controversial call, I can't think of a reason why the team should not be lowered in the rankings.

 

[kevnow123]

THe only thing I'm concerned about is the fact that it could potentially lessen the significance of the OSU MICH game as being the last game of the year for the two. I like the tradition. Although, they could put them in the same division and it would end up being just as significant because instead of it being like it is now, which is usually the last game that usually decides the big ten, it could be looked at as being the game at the end of the reg season that decides which goes to the big ten champ game.

 

[kevnow123]

Huh?

Barring a controversial call, I can't think of a reason why the team should not be lowered in the rankings.

When a team is ranked below another by about ten spots and they play the other team really well shouldn't they go up. They were expected to lose and they get faulted for doing what their ranking said they would do. In '05 we played texas down to the wire and had them beat most the game. 25-22. We were #4 in the ap and moved down to #9 the next week. Why would they rank us below texas to begin with and then fault us for losing. This year Georgia played LSU. LSU was #7 and Georgia was #18. By ranking Georgia that far behind your essentially saying that they should lose to LSU. Then they almost win and they are faulted by the simple fact that they lost. Should they be faulted for losing a game they are expected to lose

 

[kevnow123]

Huh?

Barring a controversial call, I can't think of a reason why the team should not be lowered in the rankings.

This year oklahoma played texas really close on a neutral field and they were #20 in the polls and Texas was #2. Following week they get dropped from the polls. To me that's BS. They didn't have their heisman winning QB and they still almost beat the #2 team in the nation on a nuetral field

 

[kevnow123]

Huh?

Barring a controversial call, I can't think of a reason why the team should not be lowered in the rankings.

Notre Dame was ranked #25 and they lost to #7 USC by a touchdown and played them to the last second of the game, yet they get dropped from the rankings. Same week Va Tech lost to a team ranked lower than it by a considerable amount. They were ranked #4 and lost to #19 Ga Tech, yet the next week they move to #13 and Notre Dame is not ranked when they (VT) lost to a team they were supposed to beat (GT) and Notre Dame played closer than expected. You could say that we expected ND to play that close but then why were they ranked 18 spots behind USC??????

 

[jwinslow]

Notre Dame was ranked #25 and they lost to #7 USC by a touchdown and played them to the last second of the game, yet they get dropped from the rankings.

So you're suggesting that teams should not be moved down at all if they lose closely? That doesn't sound very fair, particularly since they were extremely lucky to be ranked at that point with their close-cal wins.

 

[NateG]

OKLA lost their CCG and still made the title.

JXC you had earlier went to bat against me on the LSU point with "supposed" facts... that's the only reason I had returned with my ducks lined up.

I'll look and find more examples.

 

[Woody1968]

You mean "had", right? I was of the belief that U of C withdrew in the early part of the last century.

You are incorrect. Chicago has a permanent standing invitation to rejoin the Big 10 in football, should it's football program ever return to the FBS, formerly known as Division 1A.

 

[kevnow123]

So you're suggesting that teams should not be moved down at all if they lose closely? That doesn't sound very fair, particularly since they were extremely lucky to be ranked at that point with their close-cal wins.

I'm just wondering why they rank a team at a certain position and expect them to beat a team that they are supposed to lose to in order to keep their spot.

 

[kevnow123]

So you're suggesting that teams should not be moved down at all if they lose closely? That doesn't sound very fair, particularly since they were extremely lucky to be ranked at that point with their close-cal wins.

I'll admit this might sound dumb at first but, nevertheless, I think they put to much weight on wins and losses instead of actually analyzing the teams wins and losses. Thats what kept Iowa up there. Every one was expecting Iowa to lose sooner or later yet they were still ranked really high. Another thing I hate are the predictable upsets. By that I mean is when someone gives there top 20 or so and then calls an upset. I'm thinkin' "ok why did you just rank that team higher, clearly saying that they are better (can't think of anything else that could mean), and then predict them to lose." WTF ???? I've seen this on ESPN when Kirk or someone will completely agree with the rankings and then go and predict against them.

 

[kevnow123]

So you're suggesting that teams should not be moved down at all if they lose closely? That doesn't sound very fair, particularly since they were extremely lucky to be ranked at that point with their close-cal wins.

Or when two teams are playing and one is ranked higher yet the other is expected to win. ???? Wouldn't you rank the team that you expect to win higher than the other?

 

[MililaniBuckeye]

So you're suggesting that teams should not be moved down at all if they lose closely? That doesn't sound very fair, particularly since they were extremely lucky to be ranked at that point with their close-cal wins.

On rare occasions a team losing a very close game to a higher-ranked opponent shouldn't not be punished for losing. For example, say the #15 team loses a very close game at the #1 team, with game being virtually even in score, action, and statistics. Why would you drop the #15 team? The ranking system is supposed to rack and stack team by how good they are, and knocking a team down in the rankings despite their playing the best team in the land dead-even violates that principle. We've seen teams drop in the ranking after winning, so why can't we see teams at least maintain their position after a loss?