Big Ten and other Conference Expansion

[Mac]

Cincinnati. Show those idiots what football is all about.

 

[cincibuck]

Not an unequivocal statement from Notre Dame, but not exactly positive:

Notre Dame isn't interested in joining Big Ten -- chicagotribune.com

I'm pretty sure that the real story of '99 remains; done deal, faculty and administration chomping at the bit, then news leaks to students and alums, they go nuclear and the deal is withdrawn. It would not surprise me if this would be the case again.

From the ADs point of view he knows he's going to have to play two of the trio of OSU, Michigan and Penn State every year. He knows his basketball program will be middle of the road most years and he's going to have to share TV and bowl revenue.

From a parent/student point of view why pay $38K per year when the other schools in your conference, schools with = or better academic standing, cost a fraction of that?

"What! Be in a league with a bunch of public school kids!"

 

[CalvinistBuck]

Some good arguments about why ND should not be a part of the B10. However, it's been on my mind about why the B10 should expand at all. Permit me to redirect...and, given that there are over 1000 posts in this thread, please forgive me if my thoughts are especially redundant.

As I see it, expansion to 12 teams in the B10, from the standpoint of football only, is not advantageous to tOSU. My argument is dependent on the assumption that two six-team divisions with a conference championship is inevitable along with the current BCS system.

Even with the B10 perceived as being down, the conference has done a good job of getting two teams into lucrative BCS bowls. With the existing setup, one of the top two B10 teams is not forced to lose their last game right before the selection process. While a conference championship might produce more revenue for the conference, the financial advantage for tOSU, TSUN, and PSU might not be significant (especially if a loss in the conference championship otherwise kept them from competing in a BCS bowl).

It's my assumption that conference championships have been created in order to produce more income, not because it is better for the coaches and players. Also, forcing teams to play each other twice in the same season is undesirable. From a purely mathematical standpoint, it is challenging for two teams that are evenly matched to beat their opponent twice in a row.

Why does the B10 need to expand? Does the B10 need a conference championship to legitimize their overall product? I don't think so. Expansion may help the particular team that joins, but I'm not convinced it will particularly help tOSU.

 

[BigJim]

You have to know how to speak to ND, and they speak only in $$$'s (aside from the choking sounds you hear).

from the link a few posts ago...

Snicker if you must, but Swarbrick (AD at ND) said finances would not play much of a role. Yes, Notre Dame has a television deal with NBC that pays the school $9 million annually.

But Swarbrick agreed that Big Ten and SEC schools derive more money from their conferences' media deals. Big Ten schools receive about $20 million a year in TV and radio rights fees.

"All of this has a lot more to do with our priorities than it does with business issues," he said. "Our independence is tied up in a lot of the rivalries we have. We play Navy every year and have the tradition of USC weekends.

They might be able to make up that 10M+ in other ways so that he's masking it being a financial decision, but I can't think of where that 10M would come from. It may truly not be a $$$ thing. Someone correct me if I'm missing something...

 

[Oh8ch]

Why does the B10 need to expand? Does the B10 need a conference championship to legitimize their overall product? I don't think so. Expansion may help the particular team that joins, but I'm not convinced it will particularly help tOSU.

Many of us are anti-expansion, but that decision has apparently been made.

Since the decision is moot, we might as well be mute on the topic.

 

[buckeye247]

why are people so against this. A conference championship game will help this conference so much. Have it same day as sec big 12 championship in Lucas Oil stadium. Would be sweet. Just have a team with a good history like Syracuse or Pittsburgh.

 

[DaddyBigBucks]

Many of us are anti-expansion, but that decision has apparently been made.

Since the decision is moot, we might as well be mute on the topic.

Definition 1a of moot (the adjective) says that Moot=Debatable, so there's no point remaining mute on the subject.

Anything that is debatable will be debated on BP

 

[FCollinsBuckeye]

Anything that is debatable will be debated on BP

That's debatable.

For instance, something as mundane as 'which lunch meat is more delectible, ham or pastrami?' would never get any play on BP. Likewise, something as crude as a 'crumple or fold?' discussion wouldn't fly here.

 

[JCOSU86]

Cincinnati. Show those idiots what football is all about.

You should be dinged back to the Stone Age for this post.

 

[ORD_Buckeye]

2. Academic concerns are not driving expansion. There is no need for a 12th school to do research. I would categorize academic credentials of a school as "necessary, but not sufficient". That is, you have to be a decent school - at or near where the rest of the Big Ten is - but within that range how high you are probably wont carry as much weight as what you can do athletically.

3. What you can do athletically is all about football. Football drives revenue. It has been mentioned that research budgets dwarf athletic budgets. While this is certainly true, research budgets are not susceptible to where you rank in the BCS. OSU doesn't get more research money because we bring in a University that has a strong medical school and associated research. Successful athletics generate shared marginal income..

A couple of thoughts Oh8ch. I agree with you that the catalyst for this decision is athletic. That being said, my feeling is that athletic decision must--and will--be made in the context of certain academic constraints and with a potential veto by the Big Ten faculty senates.

I disagree that the research funding issue is not important. Just as the magic number thrown around seems to be $25 million (the amount of additional revenue that a new member must bring in to justify an extra slice of the pie) on the athletic side, I believe that there is a similar number being thrown around in the CIC offices. True, research funding is not strictly shared (various collaborations among CIC members aside), but one has to consider the resources and effort that would be made by CIC members to get a substandard member up to standard. Personally--with the exception of Notre Dame--I'd peg that magic number at around 300 million in external research funding, which is still only 75% of the CIC average.

I'll go out on a limb and predict the following two things:

1. On the graduate/research level, no non-AAU member other than Notre Dame gets invited.
2. On the undergraduate level, no school with a USN&WR rank lower than the lowest Big Ten school gets an invite other than Missouri.

 

[ORD_Buckeye]

Interesting thought. Are we taking a hands off approach towards Texas in cooperation with the Pac 10. They want to expand also, but have far fewer viable options in their area. Boise is Wright State with a football team. UNLV? The UC schools will never allow a Cal State school in. BYU would never make it past the presidents and faculties. Utah is an decent target, and Nevada might be acceptable.

OTOH, Texas and Colorado have been mentioned as Pac 10 expansion targets in the past. Given the long standing relationship betwen the two conferences and past history of coordinating their positions on the BCS, bowl games, basketball tournaments, could we, in the spirit of that partnership, be holding back and letting the Pac 10 have the first crack at Texas.

 

[DaddyBigBucks]

Speaking of Missouri, it was one of her native sons (Mark Twain) who once observed that the large migration of mid-westerners to California had "increased the average IQ of both states".

It makes me cringe to think that some might paraphrase this statement if we raid the Big 12 for a middling team and claim, accurately or not, that the move of Missouri (or fill-in-the-blank) to the Big 10 had improved both conferences.

 

[buckiprof]

The domer alumni that I know (one from 1978, 2 from 2005) all want ND to be in the Big Ten. Mainly for the reasons that have already been listed here including an upgrade in academics.

For me, ND is the most logical choice for many of the reasons already listed, so I won't list them again.

Assuming ND is still a no, then why not go hard after Texas.

In fact, why not add 3 teams...Missouri, Texas, and Oklahoma. The conference would stretch from the border with Canada to the border with Mexico.

A possible alignment:

West
Missouri
Oklahoma
Texas
Iowa
Minny
Illinois
Wisky

East
OSU
scUM
MSU
State Penn
Indiana
Purdue
Northwestern

It would be nice if our Texas friends would stop by and offer their opinions of Texas possibly joining the Big Ten.

 

[bigdog3300]

Speaking of Missouri, it was one of her native sons (Mark Twain) who once observed that the large migration of mid-westerners to California had "increased the average IQ of both states".

It makes me cringe to think that some might paraphrase this statement if we raid the Big 12 for a middling team and claim, accurately or not, that the move of Missouri (or fill-in-the-blank) to the Big 10 had improved both conferences.

so funny because it's true!

buckeye247 - I'd much prefer the Big Ten title game be on a Friday night...have all eyes on you that night, kickoff conference championship weekend. Have the conferences own day, not shared with the SEC and Big 12.

FCollins - Pastrami > ham, everyone knows that, so I don't think it's debatable.

 

[Oh8ch]

Definition 1a of moot (the adjective) says that Moot=Debatable, so there's no point remaining mute on the subject.

Anything that is debatable will be debated on BP

Definition 2 reads " of little or no practical value or meaning; purely academic". That is the definition I was using.

I (the nominative singular pronoun, used by a speaker in referring to himself or herself) will (am disposed or willing to) try (to attempt to do or accomplish) to (expressing aim, purpose, or intention) do (execute) better (in a more appropriate or acceptable way or manner).