• 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

Jump to latest Follow Reply

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
Sort by date Sort by votes
jlb1705;1622321; said:
I don't think Pitt adds a TV market that the Big Ten doesn't already hold. Texas adds the state of Texas. Missouri adds St. Louis & KC. Notre Dame adds Cincinnati :tongue2:. Hell, they probably even add NYC to a greater extent than Rutgers or Syracuse would. Pittsburgh? Isn't that market already in the bag with Penn State? TV-wise, Pittsburgh would be a much bigger loss for the Big East than it would be a gain for the Big Ten. If only one team is added, Pitt doesn't seem like the best choice IMO.
Click to expand...

Texas? Well, sure, if they're a legitimate option they'd be the best one. I think they're more of a fantasy, though. Rutgers doesn't bring anything. They'll have about 200 fans at their bowl game tonight because no one cares. Missouri would be fine for reasons you described and their rivalry with Illinois.

Oklahoma State is probably tired of playing second fiddle to the Sooners in the Big XII, and they've got T. Boone Picken$. How 'bout them Cowboys? :p
 
Upvote 0
Woody1968;1622888; said:
So when did Arizona State and Arizona stop being mid majors, since they were in the WAC until the late 70s? :) It seems to be the thing to rip the Big East nowadays, but only two of their teams had losing records this year...
Click to expand...


Probably after about fifteen years after leaving the WAC. To be honest though, they aren't much above a mid major now anyways.

Only two of their teams had losing records because they all get to play other shitty fucking Big East teams most saturdays.
 
Upvote 0
Besides some additional revenue (which may in fact be offset from lost revenue due to worse bowl selections) a conference championship game is a terrible idea for the conference. Even if the B10 expands, I would still prefer that there was no conference title game. In not one season this decade would a conference title game have helped a B10 reach the title game.

2001: Only season in which a conference title game could have improved the B10 champs standing. Illinois won the B10 with a 10-1 record and finished 8th in the BCS standings. While they could have moved with with another win in a conference title game, no way do they move form 8 to 2.

2002: Our championship season. All a conference title game does is either eliminate OSU from the title game or perhaps make Iowa lose their BCS bowl berth with an additional loss. Nothing to gain everything to lose this year.

2003: No help here either. Conference title game would have been a rematch of OSU/SCUM with the loser likely losing their BCS bowl berth. Two loss SCUM was ranked 4th in the BCS, but had no hopes of moving up with another win over OSU, as the top 3 (LSU, OU, USC) all only had 1 loss. Again, nothing to gain, everything to lose.

2004: Iowa and Michigan tie for the B10 title, both with 2 losses and finish 12th and 13th in the BCS standings. Conference title game clearly does not propel either of these teams past undefeated USC, OU or Auburn into the title game. No additional BCS game for the B10 this year, so only a slight rankings +/- to the winner/loser. Iowa and SCUM didn't play each other during the season, so I guess this would have been a nicer way to determine the Rose Bowl berth.

2005: OSU and PSU tie for the B10 title and finish 3/4 in the BCS standings. A victory by either over the other in a conference title game is of no help - USC and Texas were undefeated. A conference title loss drops OSU out of a BCS bowl most likely. Also, if Texas loses in the B12 title game, PSU has a shot at the title game. A loss in a B10 title game to OSU, however, would have left Texas clearly in the BCS title game if such a scenario had occured. Again, no potential gain, all potential negative.

2006: OSU/UF BCS title game. SCUM finishes 3rd. Though perhaps preposterous, I guess it is possible a B10 title game COULD have helped this year. OSU wins The Game. Then SCUM wins the title game rematch. Potentially, the BCS title game could have been OSU/SCUM part 3 to settle things once and for all. Most likely, all a conference title game does is make The Game meaningless here and just shuffle bowl assignments (BCS Title/ROSE) between the two teams. No chance of the B10 losing a BCS berth either, as UW would have taken the spot had UM lost to OSU again. So I guess this year has to be considered a positive for a title game, but what a wacky scenario.

2007: OSU/LSU BCS title game. B10 conference title game again would have been an OSU/SCUM rematch. Clearly this game would be of no help. A loss drops OSU out of the title game and a win would not put SCUM anywhere near the title game. OSU may not get a BCS game with a loss to SCUM either. Again, all negative.

2008: Conference title game would have been an OSU/PSU rematch. Helps BCS #8 PSU or #10 OSU move up, but definitely not to #2. OSU definitely loses the BCS berth with a loss and PSU perhaps with a loss. No benefit at all.

2009: Would have been and OSU/Iowa rematch. A win clearly does not propel either team past Bama/Texas/UC/TCU/Boise/UF. Loser is probably out of the BCS, but PSU likely takes their place. No real loss, but no gain.


So from 2001 to 2009 the only time a conference title game could have helped a B10 reach the title game and not hurt its chances was in 2001 where Illinois would have needed to jump from #8 to #2 (to be fair, they only had one loss, as did actual #2 Nebraska, but they had no chance to move up that far in reality) and in 2006 through an odd scenario where OSU and SCUM potentially meet 3 weeks in a row.

Otherwise, all such a game does is either cost B10 teams BCS title shots or BCS bowl berths. I don't see why the conference would want to add such a game.

(I typed this up quickly, I apologize for any bad grammar)
 
Upvote 0
the premise that the Big Ten title game would help the Big Ten because Ohio State got in during the 2007 season is just shitty journalism. I wouldn't base my decision (if I had one which I don't) on growing the Big Ten on some failed English major hater.
 
Upvote 0
BuckeyeMike80;1623533; said:
maybe. You don't know that for sure and as this thread has shown us, if you are basing that solely off of athletics you are missing about 2/3rds of the process.
Click to expand...

Athletics, rivalries, tradition, revenue, and the fact that they are WORLDS away from Big Ten country are all good reasons to stay in the Big 12.
 
Upvote 0
BRICKtamland;1624001; said:
Athletics, rivalries, tradition, revenue, and the fact that they are WORLDS away from Big Ten country are all good reasons to stay in the Big 12.
Click to expand...

There would be no change in athletics, tradition, or revenue. Couple this with the opportunity to go to a better ACADEMIC conference, and the enticement definitely exists.
 
Upvote 0
muffler dragon;1624005; said:
There would be no change in athletics, tradition, or revenue. Couple this with the opportunity to go to a better ACADEMIC conference, and the enticement definitely exists.
Click to expand...

I don't really want to argue this, but athletics-wise the Big 12 has been better in football recently. I really just don't see any way Texas would come to the Big Ten. It would be an unnecessary change.
 
Upvote 0
BRICKtamland;1624102; said:
I don't really want to argue this, but athletics-wise the Big 12 has been better in football recently. I really just don't see any way Texas would come to the Big Ten. It would be an unnecessary change.
Click to expand...

If you counted the big12 without texas versus the big10 would you still consider them to be better?



ps:not that it matters because I am convinced you are being intentionally obtuse since people have tried to explain the academics and financial side of it to you numerous times and you just keep repeating the same line about it.
 
Upvote 0
BRICKtamland;1624102; said:
I don't really want to argue this, but athletics-wise the Big 12 has been better in football recently. I really just don't see any way Texas would come to the Big Ten. It would be an unnecessary change.
Click to expand...

You're failing to grasp the fact that Texas didn't become Texas by making huge decisions based on "recently".
 
Upvote 0
Before this year, Mack Brown had 1 conference title IIRC. The king of the conference was OU, and quite comparable to OSU in terms of big game results (if not a LOT more humbled). Texas wasn't that far ahead of Michigan on the decade, and they don't have a 3rd team in the b12, which PSU has been at times.

I think Texas would rather stay in the b12 because they'd have an easier road to the BCS/NC than if they came north and had to beat 2-3 elite programs instead of 1 (this is based on Nebraska being a bit mediocre for the time being)
 
Upvote 0
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top