Big Ten and other Conference Expansion

[MaxBuck]

My preference:

1) No CCG - hold a 1 game tiebreaker between the top 2 ranked tied squads if a champion is not already declared.

2) CCG featuring the top 2 teams.

Scrap the division thing. It has proven to be a failure too many times.

I may be wrong, but I think the NCAA rules require two divisions and for the CCG to be between the top teams from the divisions. So not sure this idea gets us where we want to go (revenue perspective, I mean).

 

[jwinslow]

I don't pretend my suggestion is likely, but where is this rule that requires divisions and CCGs? Is this a recently installed rule?

 

[Muck]

I don't pretend my suggestion is likely, but where is this rule that requires divisions and CCGs? Is this a recently installed rule?

It does ring a bell now that he mentions it.

 

[BUCKYLE]

I think what jwins meant was..."link?".

 

[glenn]

i don't want to think about this.

i don't like this at all. i want out of that [censored]ing conference.

mangino and now leach. mangino and leach were two of the coaches whose voting helped screw us out of the title game last year.

i really don't want to think about this.

settle down, little man, things aren't changing all that much.

report just now suggests that nebraska's pelini met with saban, presumably to give pointers on how to shut us down offensively. some days ago it was ou's stoops visiting bama. can you imagine what your league office would do to a school/coach in the big ten that does that to another league member? is there any question now whether texas is going to make a move?

my thanks to knife. we need all the help we can get. better days are just around the corner for us all if we all pull together.

 

[muffler dragon]

report just now suggests that nebraska's pelini met with saban, presumably to give pointers on how to shut us down offensively. some days ago it was ou's stoops visiting bama. can you imagine what your league office would do to a school/coach in the big ten that does that to another league member? is there any question now whether texas is going to make a move?

Not that there may be something to the reports; however, the last I heard of something like this was when DickRod was talking with Stoops about what to do with WVU. If you recall; that didn't work out too well for OU.

Anyway... I don't see Pelini being the type.

 

[glenn]

hope that's right, muff. i do think pelini thinks the conference title game was stolen from him.

i've looked at that footage (inchage?) several times and i always get the same result. the game was not over. he and others can wish it all they care to. the clock keeper blew it, and time was put back on the clock like i've seen done many, many times in games but never when it had such import. incidentally, some national guys say that the ball hit a railing and that's what saved our bacon. the ball hits the ground at 2:04 in the vid. watch the guy standing with his back to the wall with the railing (black pants and white shirt). he watches the ball descend, hit the ground in front of him, and bounce on down field. all in front of him. a camera guy right on the sideline leans forward to avoid getting hit.

see for yourself:

Final Texas Drive

that's a good site, by the way, for some other vids, if you have an interest. the guy (toy on shaggybevo) does a very nice job. be aware, though, these are longhorn highlights. they don't show our klunker plays:

Texas Longhorns Video Archive

 

[MaxBuck]

I think what jwins meant was..."link?".

If I had any real idea what I was talking about, I could have provided one.

 

[Woody1968]

Agreed. Texas is one of the few universities out there that actually improves the Big Ten is almost all categories. I'm sure you can ORD, but I cannot think of another university that can say this.

Cornell

 

[IronBuckI]

I may be wrong, but I think the NCAA rules require two divisions and for the CCG to be between the top teams from the divisions. So not sure this idea gets us where we want to go (revenue perspective, I mean).

I don't pretend my suggestion is likely, but where is this rule that requires divisions and CCGs? Is this a recently installed rule?

It does ring a bell now that he mentions it.

Bylaw 17.9.5.2 (c) (page 241) of the 2009-10 NCAA Division 1 Manual states that conferences with championship games must be between divisional champs that have played a round robin within their division. The conferences must have at least 12 members, and each division must have at least 6 members.


This Bylaw is actually just an exemption to the maximum of 12 games allowed. It would probably never happen, because of revenue, but I would think that a conference could theoretically only schedule 11 games in a season, and hold a championship game, as the 12th game, without having to worry about meeting the NCAAs exemption rules.

 

[LordJeffBuck]

From all that I have read, the Big Ten wants to expand to (at least) twelve teams for two reasons: (1) to improve the perception of the conference as a football power; and (2) to allow for a conference championship game in football, which means more television doallrs for the conference as a whole. Although the expansion is being driven by football considerations, the conference will not admit a member that does not also provide both of the following: (a) a very strong undergraduate and graduate academic profile which, generally speaking, must include membership in the AAU; and (b) a substantial new television market. Other considerations - contiguous state, land grant institution, flagship university, rivalries - are minor at best, and possibly insignificant. Penn State is the "gold standard" in terms of expansion, and any new candidate must meet, or at the very least closely approach, that standard.

I believe that Texas is the best fit for the Big Ten in terms of athletics, academics, and television market, even though it is an odd choice geographically. Missouri would still be a solid choice, but it would clearly be a step down from Texas in terms of athletics, academics, and television market, while being a better fit geographically and perhaps culturally. Notre Dame is the perfect fit on the surface, but very few people on either side of the equation really want that marriage to happen. Pitt would be an excellent choice if it were located in New York City or New England, but the lack of a new television market probably dooms them in the end.

Every other candidate that has been mentioned has at least one glaring weakness and no outstanding strengths: Syracuse, Rutgers, Vanderbilt, Toronto, Iowa State, Maryland, and Virginia are not football heavyweights; West Virginia, Cincinnati, Louisville, and Virginia Tech don't have the academics (namely AAU membership); Nebraska has both a strong football program and AAU membership, but adds virtually nothing as far as television markets. Strangely enough, Texas A+M provides solid football, AAU membership, and a vast potential television market, but they seem to be a complete cultural mismatch with the Big Ten.

I am going to assume for the moment that Texas, Missouri, Notre Dame, and Pitt are the four finalists for the Big Ten expansion, and that Texas is the real target at this early stage. I am also going to assume that Texas moving to the Big 10 would cause the Big 12 to unravel. So, here are ten questions that I have about Big Ten expansion:

1. If Texas accepts, would they do so only if they were the only new team to join the conference?

2. If Texas accepts, would they try to bring along any other Big 12 members (or any other school for that matter)?

3. If Texas accepts only as part of a "package deal" with other schools, which schools would be acceptable to the Big Ten? Which schools would be deal killers?

4. If Texas accepts, would they try to prevent any other Big 12 members from joining the Big Ten? In other words, what kind of "bad blood" is there between Texas and the rest of the Big 12, and is that "bad blood" limited to certain schools or does it cover the entire conference?

5. If Texas accepts and is neutral on the issue of additional teams, would the Big Ten try to target other Big 12 members such as Missouri, or would the conference be happy with twelve members?

6. If the Big Ten lands Texas, would they use this as leverage to try to get Notre Dame to join as well? Or would the conference tell the Domers to take a permanent hike?

7. If Texas does not accept, should the Big Ten target a "lesser" school such as Missouri, or just forgo expansion for the time being?

8. Can anyone make a credible argument that Texas is not the best choice?

9. Can anyone make a credible argument that expansion is a bad idea?

10. Would the Big Ten care if their poaching a team from another conference would casue that conference to collapse?

I know that a lot of this has been discussed in bits and pieces throughout this very long thread, but I'd really like to see other people's thoughts on these issues, especially on the idea of a Big 12 "package deal" involving Texas and some other schools.

 

[Woody1968]

I am going to assume for the moment that Texas, Missouri, Notre Dame, and Pitt are the four finalists for the Big Ten expansion, and that Texas is the real target at this early stage. I am also going to assume that Texas moving to the Big 10 would cause the Big 12 to unravel. So, here are ten questions that I have about Big Ten expansion:

1. If Texas accepts, would they do so only if they were the only new team to join the conference?

I believe that the Big 10 only wants one school. If Texas was the choice, you have to figure that they would have to jump without taking along their little brothers. Honestly, I can see where the academic interest would be for Texas, but is the incentive really there for them to leave their most logical rivalries in the Big 12? Either way, The Big 10 isn't likely to add more than one team. Texas isn't likely to put the condition you describe on the deal by themselves.

2. If Texas accepts, would they try to bring along any other Big 12 members (or any other school for that matter)?

I could see them trying to drag the Teaxas schools along, if the Texas legislature forces them to, but I can't really think that A&M, TT or Baylor would really want to leave the Big 12 for the Big 10, it makes far less sense for them.

3. If Texas accepts only as part of a "package deal" with other schools, which schools would be acceptable to the Big Ten? Which schools would be deal killers?

I do not think that the Big 10 will add more than one team. 12 seems to be the limit of conference respectability. Both the MAC and the WAC have had failed attempts to have more than 12 teams, and neither time has it been very successfull. So in answer to your question, any package deal will be a deal breaker.

4. If Texas accepts, would they try to prevent any other Big 12 members from joining the Big Ten? In other words, what kind of "bad blood" is there between Texas and the rest of the Big 12, and is that "bad blood" limited to certain schools or does it cover the entire conference?

Longhorn fans probably better suited to answer this.

5. If Texas accepts and is neutral on the issue of additional teams, would the Big Ten try to target other Big 12 members such as Missouri, or would the conference be happy with twelve members?

Happy with 12.

6. If the Big Ten lands Texas, would they use this as leverage to try to get Notre Dame to join as well? Or would the conference tell the Domers to take a permanent hike?

I think they would only pursue Texas if ND, Pitt, Syracuse, Rutgers, West Virginia, Cincy and UConn turned the Big 10 down. I know everyone here is putting the odds on Texas being the team, but I have seen nothing to indicate that the Big 10 is even remotely interested in pursuing Texas. The only source for this proposed deal is in the minds of buckeye planet posters. Therefore, if they are offering Texas, it means that Notre Dame is already out of the picture.

7. If Texas does not accept, should the Big Ten target a "lesser" school such as Missouri, or just forgo expansion for the time being?

Personally, if they don't land Notre Dame, I don't think they should expand at all.

8. Can anyone make a credible argument that Texas is not the best choice?

There are many credible arguments why Texas would not be the best choice, the question is, will people who have a hard on for Texas joining the Big 10 even listen to them? The best argument is that The Big 10 has NEVER indicated any desire to take Texas. Texas has absolutely no traditional rivalries in the Big 10. Texas will have to incur huge expenses in travelling to any away games in every sport. Texas is different culturally form the Big 10 country. Texas will have to give up its traditional rivalries, or at least, decrease their importance. And Texas will start to get a recruiting foothold in Ohio.

9. Can anyone make a credible argument that expansion is a bad idea?

Conference Games suck, especially when the two participants are not traditional powers, and the ratings aren't there. They weaken the importance of traditional rivalry week games. More chance that crucial players could get injured. In some seasons, the undefeated team #1 or #2 loses the conference campionship and goes from a BCS bearth to the Poulan Weed Eater Independence Bowl, thereby actually costing the conference more money in lost BCS revenue. The Big 10 usually gets 2 teams in the BCS, why screw with this?

10. Would the Big Ten care if their poaching a team from another conference would casue that conference to collapse?

Yes, the Big 10 is not the ACC, but I do think they would raid the Big East before the Big 12.

I know that a lot of this has been discussed in bits and pieces throughout this very long thread, but I'd really like to see other people's thoughts on these issues, especially on the idea of a Big 12 "package deal" involving Texas and some other schools.

I think that the possibility is very unlikely.

 

[kn1f3party]

1. From what I gather about their university and athletic department I can't imagine this being the case.

2. I think they would be neutral to the idea and that would be at our discretion. If we gave them the impression there is room for others they may prefer bringing their little brother A&M along.

3. A&M and Missouri stand out immediately as acceptable, to a lesser extent Iowa State (a much lesser extent). Feedback I am seeing from UT fans seems to suggest that Nebraska or Kansas could be deal breakers--and really anyone from the Big 8.

4. glenn discussed some bad blood between Tech and Kansas but mostly as it pertained to the coaches. I think all of the Big 8 schools will have bad blood with Texas for jumping ship so none of them would be acceptable to Texas.

5. If they get Texas, they'd be content with 12. If for some reason they weren't you have to figure Missouri will be in the mix and possibly A&M to help negate travel considerations for the three new members. If you think about it, this is genius because geographically it starts to make sense--just like Risk.

6. We won't be pursuing Notre Dame. I think too many egos have been bruised. They may come crawling and at that point I think the B10 brings them along.

7. The Big Ten sounds like they are moving forward with expansion. I would encourage choosing Missouri merely for the sake of unraveling the Big 12 and hopefully adding Texas down the road, once we are better geographical fits from further expansion.

8. Other than geography, none of the other issues seem to be issues. Even geography makes us better for them then the PAC 10. Texas is going one place or the other in my eyes--why not here.

9. Some can about pageantry and tradition, but change is hard and they'll get over it.

10. No, I don't see why it would be any more significant to the Big Ten than it was to the ACC several years ago when they further crippled the Big East.

1. If Texas accepts, would they do so only if they were the only new team to join the conference?

2. If Texas accepts, would they try to bring along any other Big 12 members (or any other school for that matter)?

3. If Texas accepts only as part of a "package deal" with other schools, which schools would be acceptable to the Big Ten? Which schools would be deal killers?

4. If Texas accepts, would they try to prevent any other Big 12 members from joining the Big Ten? In other words, what kind of "bad blood" is there between Texas and the rest of the Big 12, and is that "bad blood" limited to certain schools or does it cover the entire conference?

5. If Texas accepts and is neutral on the issue of additional teams, would the Big Ten try to target other Big 12 members such as Missouri, or would the conference be happy with twelve members?

6. If the Big Ten lands Texas, would they use this as leverage to try to get Notre Dame to join as well? Or would the conference tell the Domers to take a permanent hike?

7. If Texas does not accept, should the Big Ten target a "lesser" school such as Missouri, or just forgo expansion for the time being?

8. Can anyone make a credible argument that Texas is not the best choice?

9. Can anyone make a credible argument that expansion is a bad idea?

10. Would the Big Ten care if their poaching a team from another conference would casue that conference to collapse?

I know that a lot of this has been discussed in bits and pieces throughout this very long thread, but I'd really like to see other people's thoughts on these issues, especially on the idea of a Big 12 "package deal" involving Texas and some other schools.

 

[Buckeyeskickbuttocks]

A word on "culture" because I don't agree with 1968's opinion....

I'm going to limit my remarks more to the football side of things, because that's the only exposure I have with Austin... but..

Texas fans strike me as very Big Ten like. More specifically, Texas fans strike me as Ohio State like. They live and die with their team, like we do. They support it hell or high water, they invest in football, they are smart fans, they are good fans (some might say even better fans than our own) and they know how to have a good time at a game - and that's the thing, maybe... at the end of the day, no matter how seriously we all take football.. they "get" it.. that it's just a game... no "real" bad blood between them and people they respect... and they seem willing to give you respect until you do something to lose it.

I don't know... I was really impressed with my interactions with Texas fans... good time ribbing, but always with a eye on reality.

 

[Piney]

So, here are ten questions that I have about Big Ten expansion:

1. If Texas accepts, would they do so only if they were the only new team to join the conference?

2. If Texas accepts, would they try to bring along any other Big 12 members (or any other school for that matter)?

3. If Texas accepts only as part of a "package deal" with other schools, which schools would be acceptable to the Big Ten? Which schools would be deal killers?

4. If Texas accepts, would they try to prevent any other Big 12 members from joining the Big Ten? In other words, what kind of "bad blood" is there between Texas and the rest of the Big 12, and is that "bad blood" limited to certain schools or does it cover the entire conference?

5. If Texas accepts and is neutral on the issue of additional teams, would the Big Ten try to target other Big 12 members such as Missouri, or would the conference be happy with twelve members?

6. If the Big Ten lands Texas, would they use this as leverage to try to get Notre Dame to join as well? Or would the conference tell the Domers to take a permanent hike?

7. If Texas does not accept, should the Big Ten target a "lesser" school such as Missouri, or just forgo expansion for the time being?

8. Can anyone make a credible argument that Texas is not the best choice?

9. Can anyone make a credible argument that expansion is a bad idea?

10. Would the Big Ten care if their poaching a team from another conference would casue that conference to collapse?

I know that a lot of this has been discussed in bits and pieces throughout this very long thread, but I'd really like to see other people's thoughts on these issues, especially on the idea of a Big 12 "package deal" involving Texas and some other schools.

GREAT points LJB! And great summary of what has been discussed lately.

My answers...

1. Million dollar question really. And really... to get them I would be willing to expand to 14 because getting into the Texas market would be a goldmine for TV & recruiting.

2. Goes with #1, I would assume if they want another team to come with them to the Big 10 it would be another Big 12 school. But hopefully they just want one more school versus bringing in 2.

3. I think the only acceptable Big 12 schools would be Missouri, Texas A&M & Nebraska, in that order. Oklahoma is too borderline on academics and the other schools bring nothing.

4. Dont know...

5. If Texas doesn't mind being the only one, then we shouldn't try to add any more except in one case...

6. If we can also land Notre Dame. I know they are arrogant, but imagine the prestige being able to steal Texas & Notre Dame. Really the 3rd team means nothing, and I would argue that the 3rd team should be Syracuse to secure the NY market and add a basketball power since adding to giant football teams we should 'even' out the portfolio by going with a Syracuse or a Pitt/Rutgers.

7. If Texas says 'No' ... then I am to the point that I would not want expansion. Cuz if the Pac10 raids the Big 12 then Texas might change their mind one day.

8. Impossible... there is no way to say they are not the best option.

9. Expansion would be a bad idea if it was expansion for the sake of expansion. ie, if we end up adding Rutgers or a West Virginia/Cincinnati (I know it won't happen, just using it as worst case scenario) then it would be a step back and not worth doing.

10. I say the only conference the Big 10 cares about besides itself is the Pac10. As long as they are not affected, I don't think they would or should care.