Big Ten to add 12th team?

[exiledbuckeye]

Rumored targets are Rutgers, Syracuse, Pitt, Missouri, Cincinnati or Louisville.

Link: http://www.chicagotribune.com/sports/co ... 4882.story

[Triple-S]

Notre Dame or bust.

And I know, I know, They suck...But, I think you go big or go home.

Cincy would be odd as hell as a fit IMO.

[Cease]

So, two divisions and a conference championship game?... Assuming rivalry games stay in tact.

[Larvell Blanks]

Big money or bust.

Championship game would garner the conference an extra 5 million dollars. Plus keep them in the spotlight the same weekend as the SEC/French 12 championship games.

Sounds like a no brainer. IF it happens it'll be interesting how teams would be divided. Do you keep OSU and Mich in the same division and have the yearly matchup or place them in opposite divisions and hope they meet in the championship game?

[Erie Warrior]

Do you keep OSU and Mich in the same division and have the yearly matchup or place them in opposite divisions and hope they meet in the championship game?

Same division. Gotta happen every year. I like the idea, keeps Big 10 teams from having a month off before bowl games.

[Larvell Blanks]

Same division. Gotta happen every year. I like the idea, keeps Big 10 teams from having a month off before bowl games.

If Michigan's program builds up to elite again, wouldn't the B10 want them in opposite divisions to meet up in the championship game (ratings)? The runner up in this game would more than likely see a BCS bowl game. If they are in the same division, wouldn't the loser of The Game lose out on a chance at a BCS bowl?
Just trying to think like the B10 officials might in terms of dollars and cents.

[aoxo1]

You split them into different divisions and assign each team an annual rivalry game against a team in the opposite division.

[pup]

You split them into different divisions and assign each team an annual rivalry game against a team in the opposite division.

+4

[JCoz]

Have to put them in the same Div, period. You have to preserve that rivalry, and you dont want rematches in back to back active weeks in THE game/CC Game.

No real geographic way to lay out the div that way, but that's the way it has to go down, IMO.

I mean, if the B10 doesn't mind having 11 members and still calls itself the B10, I doubt they will have a problem with both Michigan and OSU being part of the North/South/East/West division even if it makes no sense.

[motherscratcher]

Same division. Gotta happen every year. I like the idea, keeps Big 10 teams from having a month off before bowl games.

If Michigan's program builds up to elite again, wouldn't the B10 want them in opposite divisions to meet up in the championship game (ratings)? The runner up in this game would more than likely see a BCS bowl game. If they are in the same division, wouldn't the loser of The Game lose out on a chance at a BCS bowl?
Just trying to think like the B10 officials might in terms of dollars and cents.

Well, we need to start from a place were tOSU and UM will meet every year. That is absolutely going to happen. There's no way they would mess with that game. Even if in opposite divisions they would schedule it in.

So, that leaves either:

1. They are in the same division and they would never meet in the conference championship.

2. They are in opposite divisions and are scheduled to play every year anyway just like it is now. The winner would likely knock the loser out of the CC so they still probably would very rarely play in the CC against each other, except in the rare years that there is a rematch.

So, adding a Championship game, IMHO would rarely end with tOSU v UM.

I'd be willing to accept that, providing they still play around Thanksgiving every year. It works in the SEC with Ala v Aub.

[JCoz]

You split them into different divisions and assign each team an annual rivalry game against a team in the opposite division.

+4

I don't see how this is a good solution.

Remember 2006? What if there were 2 divisions and a conference championship game?

How many people would have thought it would have been fair to make the buckeyes beat Michigan 2 times in a row to go the NCG or even just the B10? While all michigan would have had to do is beat us once.....

I don't know how often it would happen (OSU vs Mich in the CCG) but I'd bet it would be a couple of times a decade.

[aoxo1]

[
I'd be willing to accept that, providing they still play around Thanksgiving every year. It works in the SEC with Ala v Aub.

Bama and Auburn are both in the SEC West. But your point is true in a more general sense, in that each SEC team has a rivalry game against a team in the opposite division they ALWAYS play. I think Tenn-Bama is one, as is UF-LSU (they created this one, but it has become a huge game).

You split them into different divisions and assign each team an annual rivalry game against a team in the opposite division.

+4

I don't see how this is a good solution.

Remember 2006? What if there were 2 divisions and a conference championship game?

How many people would have thought it would have been fair to make the buckeyes beat Michigan 2 times in a row to go the NCG or even just the B10? While all michigan would have had to do is beat us once.....

I don't know how often it would happen (OSU vs Mich in the CCG) but I'd bet it would be a couple of times a decade.

Umm, that is always going to be an issue with divisions. Teams might have to win twice against the same school. And it cuts both ways, as if OSU would have lost to Mich it wouldn't have mattered if they won the title game. Unless you are absolutely adamant about them always playing the last week and consider it unthinkable that they might play in back to back weeks.

[JCoz]

Umm, that is always going to be an issue with divisions. Teams might have to win twice against the same school. And it cuts both ways, as if OSU would have lost to Mich it wouldn't have mattered if they won the title game. Unless you are absolutely adamant about them always playing the last week and consider it unthinkable that they might play in back to back weeks.

The only conference with comparable rivalries is the B12, with Texas/OK and OK/Nebraska.

Neither of these conferences has a set rivalry game for the last regular season game.

Would you want the red river shootout to happen right before the CCG and have them in seperate divisions?

I mean, the rematch in consecutive weeks (active weeks) is just a really shitty posibility here.

I think IF you want OSU michigan in dif divisions, you absolutely have to move THE game to another time in the season.

[JCoz]

Umm, that is always going to be an issue with divisions. Teams might have to win twice against the same school. And it cuts both ways, as if OSU would have lost to Mich it wouldn't have mattered if they won the title game. Unless you are absolutely adamant about them always playing the last week and consider it unthinkable that they might play in back to back weeks.

No it isn't. The issue is that the OSU/UM game is locked into the last week of the season.

If it was not, THEN you could lump this in as a general risk when you have 12 teams and a CCG.

Having that game locked in increases the odds of a back-to-back rematch exponentially.

[Ziner]

Why do divisions? They help with the cleanliness of the schedules, but if you lump UM, OSU and PSU in the same division you start with a overloaded division from day 1 and will most likely continue to be for the foreseeable future meanwhile letting Wisconsin, Minn, Iowa, etc have some half assed division. Why not just continue to play 7 Big 10 (11?, 12?) games on a rotating schedule and have a rivalry week in the middle of the year to make up the 8 league games to avoid likely multiple back to backs by UM and OSU. Then for the CC take the top two records.

[leadpipe]

Umm, that is always going to be an issue with divisions. Teams might have to win twice against the same school. And it cuts both ways, as if OSU would have lost to Mich it wouldn't have mattered if they won the title game. Unless you are absolutely adamant about them always playing the last week and consider it unthinkable that they might play in back to back weeks.

No it isn't. The issue is that the OSU/UM game is locked into the last week of the season.

If it was not, THEN you could lump this in as a general risk when you have 12 teams and a CCG.

Having that game locked in increases the odds of a back-to-back rematch exponentially.

You guys are wasting time with any logic or reason.

The dollars will decide what does or does not happen.

If "preserving the rivalry" fits the bill financially, then the conference will trumpet this vey fact. If it doesn't, then the rivalry will all of the sudden lose some importance.

I mean, if they were interested in such things they wouldn't be adding a team.

EVERYTHING, from this, to no playoff, to Kelly jumping, to "the kids".... all this nonsense is based on the dollar.

Show me the plan that makes the most cake from OSU/Michigan, and you'll be showing me what will happen

[JCoz]

Why do divisions? They help with the cleanliness of the schedules, but if you lump UM, OSU and PSU in the same division you start with a overloaded division from day 1 and will most likely continue to be for the foreseeable future meanwhile letting Wisconsin, Minn, Iowa, etc have some half assed division. Why not just continue to play 7 Big 10 (11?, 12?) games on a rotating schedule and have a rivalry week in the middle of the year to make up the 8 league games to avoid likely multiple back to backs by UM and OSU. Then for the CC take the top two records.

Why would you put all three in one division? I think OSU/UM and PSU/Whisky should be in seperate divisions.

You can maintain a schedule that include PSU as a must-play game for OSU like it is now.

OSU, UM, MSU, PUR, ILL, IND

PSU, Wisky, NW, IND, MIN, #12

[JCoz]

Umm, that is always going to be an issue with divisions. Teams might have to win twice against the same school. And it cuts both ways, as if OSU would have lost to Mich it wouldn't have mattered if they won the title game. Unless you are absolutely adamant about them always playing the last week and consider it unthinkable that they might play in back to back weeks.

No it isn't. The issue is that the OSU/UM game is locked into the last week of the season.

If it was not, THEN you could lump this in as a general risk when you have 12 teams and a CCG.

Having that game locked in increases the odds of a back-to-back rematch exponentially.

You guys are wasting time with any logic or reason.

The dollars will decide what does or does not happen.

If "preserving the rivalry" fits the bill financially, then the conference will trumpet this vey fact. If it doesn't, then the rivalry will all of the sudden lose some importance.

I mean, if they were interested in such things they wouldn't be adding a team.

EVERYTHING, from this, to no playoff, to Kelly jumping, to "the kids".... all this nonsense is based on the dollar.

Show me the plan that makes the most cake from OSU/Michigan, and you'll be showing me what will happen

This is largely irrelevent Lead. The Conference Championship game is going to bring the dollars to the table no matter what alignment (within reason) is chosen.

You show me a reasonable alignment (no UM/OSU/PSU/Whisky in the same div) and then show me another one that is going to have even a moderate effect on the "dollars" and I'll show you a unicorn.

The 12th team in all likelyhood brings some added footprint to the B10 network, possibly renegotiated TV contracts along with a very profitable CC Game.

The division set up will have little to no effect on those dollars, IMO.

[leadpipe]

Umm, that is always going to be an issue with divisions. Teams might have to win twice against the same school. And it cuts both ways, as if OSU would have lost to Mich it wouldn't have mattered if they won the title game. Unless you are absolutely adamant about them always playing the last week and consider it unthinkable that they might play in back to back weeks.

No it isn't. The issue is that the OSU/UM game is locked into the last week of the season.

If it was not, THEN you could lump this in as a general risk when you have 12 teams and a CCG.

Having that game locked in increases the odds of a back-to-back rematch exponentially.

You guys are wasting time with any logic or reason.

The dollars will decide what does or does not happen.

If "preserving the rivalry" fits the bill financially, then the conference will trumpet this vey fact. If it doesn't, then the rivalry will all of the sudden lose some importance.

I mean, if they were interested in such things they wouldn't be adding a team.

EVERYTHING, from this, to no playoff, to Kelly jumping, to "the kids".... all this nonsense is based on the dollar.

Show me the plan that makes the most cake from OSU/Michigan, and you'll be showing me what will happen

This is largely irrelevent Lead. The Conference Championship game is going to bring the dollars to the table no matter what alignment (within reason) is chosen.

You show me a reasonable alignment (no UM/OSU/PSU/Whisky in the same div) and then show me another one that is going to have even a moderate effect on the "dollars" and I'll show you a unicorn.

The 12th team in all likelyhood brings some added footprint to the B10 network, possibly renegotiated TV contracts along with a very profitable CC Game.

The division set up will have little to no effect on those dollars, IMO.

Irrelevant compared to the championship game revenue, of course.

All I'm saying is, when they are around the table talking alignment, there will be one consideration, and one consideration only. And it will have nothing to do with regions, traditions or anything else.

[Ziner]

Why do divisions? They help with the cleanliness of the schedules, but if you lump UM, OSU and PSU in the same division you start with a overloaded division from day 1 and will most likely continue to be for the foreseeable future meanwhile letting Wisconsin, Minn, Iowa, etc have some half assed division. Why not just continue to play 7 Big 10 (11?, 12?) games on a rotating schedule and have a rivalry week in the middle of the year to make up the 8 league games to avoid likely multiple back to backs by UM and OSU. Then for the CC take the top two records.

Why would you put all three in one division? I think OSU/UM and PSU/Whisky should be in seperate divisions.

You can maintain a schedule that include PSU as a must-play game for OSU like it is now.

OSU, UM, MSU, PUR, ILL, IND

PSU, Wisky, NW, IND, MIN, #12

You think PSU wants to be doing significantly farther traveing than anyone else in the league? Splitting it up geographically like the other conferences (except the ACC) makes the most sense, that is why I would lump UM, OSU and PSU in the same conference. However you didnt answer my question. Why do they have to do divisions. Dont you want your best two teams in the CC regardless?

[pup]

Woody Division - OSU, PSU, Indiana, Illinois, Cincinnati, Purdue

Bo Division - UM, Wisconsin, Iowa, Northwestern, Michigan State, Minnesota

One "rivalry" game midseason:

OSU/scUM
PSU/Wisconsin
Indiana/Minnesota
Illinois/Northwestern
Cincinatti/Michigan State
Purdue/Iowa

5 division games
1 other game with other division rotating.

If playing The Game at another point in the season would diminish the rivalry, then it isn't a rivalry.

[jack_tors]

Rumored targets are Rutgers, Syracuse, Pitt, Missouri, Cincinnati or Louisville.

Link: http://www.chicagotribune.com/sports/co ... 4882.story

Like others, I am okay with this provided scUM and OSU still meet every year, the last regular season game. I personally would prefer they remain without a championship game as its tradition and I enjoy how the tiebreakers work. It adds value to a regular season game as a loss could cost you real big at the end of the season.

However, they have to add a big time school to really be worth it. We dont need another Indiana or Northwestern type school that competes in football once a decade.

[mattvan1]

If playing The Game at another point in the season would diminish the rivalry, then it isn't a rivalry.

Bingo.

Florida-Georgia is lessend by the fact they play the last weekend of October?
Texas-Oklahoma during the Texas State Fair?

[FUDU]

If playing The Game at another point in the season would diminish the rivalry, then it isn't a rivalry.

Bingo.

Florida-Georgia is lessend by the fact they play the last weekend of October?
Texas-Oklahoma during the Texas State Fair?

I understand that point but somewhat disagree. THE GAME being the last game of the season is a big reason why the rivalry reached the status it did.

It has often been a conference championship game of sorts all by itself.

To the point of the rivalries mentioned above, were those games ever played as the LAST game of the season for decades?

[aoxo1]

Woody Division - OSU, PSU, Indiana, Illinois, Cincinnati, Purdue

Bo Division - UM, Wisconsin, Iowa, Northwestern, Michigan State, Minnesota

One "rivalry" game midseason:

OSU/scUM
PSU/Wisconsin
Indiana/Minnesota
Illinois/Northwestern
Cincinatti/Michigan State
Purdue/Iowa

5 division games
1 other game with other division rotating.

If playing The Game at another point in the season would diminish the rivalry, then it isn't a rivalry.

It'll be a cold day in hell before you take away the meaning of the Land Grant Trophy for a manufactured PSU/Wisc rivalry!

Few other quick points
1) With the right 12th team (ND), putting OSU/Mich in one division and PSU/ND in the other would work from a power program/history/cache standpoint
2) I think JCoz, amongst others, is selling short exactly how big championship game matchups between OSU and Michigan would be, especially if they happen often. Tradition is great, I love it, but it doesn't mean that it is the best or most exciting system.
3) Likewise, JCoz overstates how much people around the country care about the OSU/Michigan rivalry by saying that there is nothing else even close except Texas-Oklahoma. Here's a hint: no one in the SEC cares. No one in the PAC 10 cares. No one in the Big XII cares. I freely admit that it is the biggest rivalry in college FB, but that doesn't mean that even close to most people outside of it consider it some hugely important game. Truth is hardly anyone outside the midwest gives two shits about it. It's only important to everyone else when it has championship implications, same as a title game would.

[leadpipe]

Woody Division - OSU, PSU, Indiana, Illinois, Cincinnati, Purdue

Bo Division - UM, Wisconsin, Iowa, Northwestern, Michigan State, Minnesota

One "rivalry" game midseason:

OSU/scUM
PSU/Wisconsin
Indiana/Minnesota
Illinois/Northwestern
Cincinatti/Michigan State
Purdue/Iowa

5 division games
1 other game with other division rotating.

If playing The Game at another point in the season would diminish the rivalry, then it isn't a rivalry.

It'll be a cold day in hell before you take away the meaning of the Land Grant Trophy for a manufactured PSU/Wisc rivalry!

Few other quick points
1) With the right 12th team (ND), putting OSU/Mich in one division and PSU/ND in the other would work from a power program/history/cache standpoint
2) I think JCoz, amongst others, is selling short exactly how big championship game matchups between OSU and Michigan would be, especially if they happen often. Tradition is great, I love it, but it doesn't mean that it is the best or most exciting system.
3) Likewise, JCoz overstates how much people around the country care about the OSU/Michigan rivalry by saying that there is nothing else even close except Texas-Oklahoma. Here's a hint: no one in the SEC cares. No one in the PAC 10 cares. No one in the Big XII cares. I freely admit that it is the biggest rivalry in college FB, but that doesn't mean that even close to most people outside of it consider it some hugely important game. Truth is hardly anyone outside the midwest gives two shits about it. It's only important to everyone else when it has championship implications, same as a title game would.

Point number 3 is spot on, and very relevant to the conversation.

There's thousands of slap nuts south of the Mason-Dixon that don't even know OSU and Michigan play every year.

[hermanfontenot]

The Big Ten shouldn't be thinking about expansion. The Big Ten should be thinking about subtraction. As in, subtracting Penn State, going back to ten teams, and playing a round-robin schedule a la the Pac-10. Penn State doesn't belong in the Big Ten. Penn State belongs in the Big East.

[Triple-S]

My two cents, but, In a dream world, here's how CFB would look Big Conference Wise (+Adding a playoff)

ACC

Atlantic

Clemson
Florida St.
Maryland
NC State
South Carolina
Wake Forrest

Coastal

Virginia Tech
Georgia Tech
Miami
Virginia
Duke
UNC



Big East

East

Army (Service Academies should get some props and be in a major conference)
Navy
Sryacuse
UConn
Boston College (has no business in the ACC)
Rutgers

West

Penn State
Pitt
West Virginia
Marshall
Cincinati
South Florida (just for the Phist)

Championship Game @ Lincoln Fincial Field, Giants Stadium or FedEX Field

Big XII

Plains Division

Nebraska
Iowa St
Kansas
Kansas St.
BYU
Utah

Mountain Division

Colorado
Colorado St.
Air Force
Wyoming
Boise State
New Mexico

Championship game @ Denver, Kansas City or St. Louis

SEC

East

Florida
Georgia
Tennessee
Kentucky
Louisville (Basketball)
Vanderbilt

West

Auburn
Alabama
Ole Miss
Mississippi St.
LSU
Memphis (purely Basketball, and the Liberty Bowl can hold a major crowd)

Championship game @ Atlanta

SWC (ask us about getting in trouble with the NCAA.)

North

Oklahoma
Oklahoma St.
Texas Tech
Baylor
SMU
TCU

South

Texas
Texas A&M
Arkansas
Houston
Rice
UTEP

Championship game @ either The Alamodome, Reliant Stadium or Cowboys Stadium

PAC 12

North

Washington
Washington St.
Oregon
Oregon St.
Cal
Stanford

South

UCLA
USC
Arizona
Arizona St.
UNLV (Lets pretend it's 1991 and they are recruiting like mad and are a good bball school again)
Hawai'i

Championship game @ Candlestick Park?

And finally, The Big Ten

East

Ohio State
Michigan
Michigan St
Notre Dame
Indiana
Purdue

West

Wisconsin
Minnesota
Illinois
Northwestern
Iowa
Missouri

Championships is held at the Colts new stadium in Indy. Also, would be cool to see TOSU and Notre Dame evolve into some form of a rivalry, everytime the two play it seems to generate a lot of excitement.

[jfiling]

The one weird team I've been seeing mentioned (and looking this up, they were mentioned a few years ago) as possibly joining the Big 10 is Nebraska. They would be the next best team after Notre Dame, and apparently they aren't all that happy in the Big 12. Old article here:

http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/2007/w ... index.html

The one thing I have seen mentioned here is that the money from a championship game will not even come close to the loss each current Big 10 team will lose from dividing the pot 12 ways. Never mind the fact that the Big 10 has been pretty good at getting two teams into BCS Bowls, which would be imperiled with a championship game.

How about we just get rid of Northwestern?

[JCoz]

Woody Division - OSU, PSU, Indiana, Illinois, Cincinnati, Purdue

Bo Division - UM, Wisconsin, Iowa, Northwestern, Michigan State, Minnesota

One "rivalry" game midseason:

OSU/scUM
PSU/Wisconsin
Indiana/Minnesota
Illinois/Northwestern
Cincinatti/Michigan State
Purdue/Iowa

5 division games
1 other game with other division rotating.

If playing The Game at another point in the season would diminish the rivalry, then it isn't a rivalry.

It'll be a cold day in hell before you take away the meaning of the Land Grant Trophy for a manufactured PSU/Wisc rivalry!

Few other quick points
1) With the right 12th team (ND), putting OSU/Mich in one division and PSU/ND in the other would work from a power program/history/cache standpoint
2) I think JCoz, amongst others, is selling short exactly how big championship game matchups between OSU and Michigan would be, especially if they happen often. Tradition is great, I love it, but it doesn't mean that it is the best or most exciting system.
3) Likewise, JCoz overstates how much people around the country care about the OSU/Michigan rivalry by saying that there is nothing else even close except Texas-Oklahoma. Here's a hint: no one in the SEC cares. No one in the PAC 10 cares. No one in the Big XII cares. I freely admit that it is the biggest rivalry in college FB, but that doesn't mean that even close to most people outside of it consider it some hugely important game. Truth is hardly anyone outside the midwest gives two shits about it. It's only important to everyone else when it has championship implications, same as a title game would.

2) I think you are missing the fact that we already have that several times a decade, which is as much as you will get if you split the divisions.

Do you think that the 06 OSU/UM game could have been ANY bigger than it was that year? It wouldn't have been bigger as a CC Game, and in fact IT CAN"T BE REPEATED AS A CC GAME. It literally is not possible to have an undefeated UM vs undefeated OSU in a CCG unless they don't play at ALL during the year. Remember that they had Texas/OK vs Nebraska in mind when they made the B12, They had FSU vs MIA inmind for the ACC. It didn't pan out that way, you don't get to plan the CC Game ahead of time.

3) I guess you are going to have to explain this one to me. I am not myopic when it comes to OSU/UM....there are simply only a handful of CFB rivalries that can even be mentioned in the same breath. There is no debate there. The Iron Bowl, Texas/OK, maybe one or two more. The UF/UGA game isn't close.

To your point, I really don't give a fuck about the Iron Bowl, but I respect that the rivalry is huge. I would fully expect many southerners to feel the same about OSU/UM, so whatever you meant here, you misread me badly if you are saying that I think everyone cares about THE game. You'd have to be pretty ignorant to think that, or maybe have never left OHIO. Being in the military I've lived all over the midwest/south/east coast, and as a result have many friends from all over the country I have watched CFB with. When you are overseas all you have is AFN, so you're watching whatever games they show. Saturdays were spent in front of a big screen with 20 CFB fans, absolutely none of which were OSU fans and only 1 or 2 were even fans of the B10.

Now, my question would be what the fuck does national perception of the OSU/UM rivalry have to do with conference alignments?

Seems like it has nothing to do with it whatsoever.

My point stands, and it is simply that conference alignment has NO EFFECT on the dollars involved.

You haven't given any decent points to why a POSSIBLE OSU/UM CC game significantly changes the bottom line.

[JCoz]

The one weird team I've been seeing mentioned (and looking this up, they were mentioned a few years ago) as possibly joining the Big 10 is Nebraska. They would be the next best team after Notre Dame, and apparently they aren't all that happy in the Big 12. Old article here:

http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/2007/w ... index.html

The one thing I have seen mentioned here is that the money from a championship game will not even come close to the loss each current Big 10 team will lose from dividing the pot 12 ways. Never mind the fact that the Big 10 has been pretty good at getting two teams into BCS Bowls, which would be imperiled with a championship game.

How about we just get rid of Northwestern?

I don't think you are factoring in renegotiation of TV contracts. You think Delany would just add 12th team and a CC Game for free? Hell no. If what you pointed out was possible in ANY WAY, there is no way they would be doing the deal.

In that I agree 100% with Lead, it is all about the money. If it isn't more profitable, it doesn't happen.

B10 Priority list:

1. Money
















2. Tradition

[Spin]

Notre Dame isn't joining a conference because Notre Dame IS a conference. They don't have to split the network money and the bowl money with anyone else. They like it where they are.

Add Cinci. Major market, unlike most of the rest of the Big Ten. Makes geographic sense.

Eastern Division:
Ohio State
Indiana
Michigan
Michigan State
Penn State
Pitt, WVA, or Cinci


Western Division:
Illinois
Iowa
Minnesota
Northwestern
Purdue
Wisconsin

[JCoz]

Notre Dame isn't joining a conference because Notre Dame IS a conference. They don't have to split the network money and the bowl money with anyone else. They like it where they are.

Add Cinci. Major market, unlike most of the rest of the Big Ten. Makes geographic sense.

Eastern Division:
Ohio State
Indiana
Michigan
Michigan State
Penn State
Pitt, WVA, or Cinci


Western Division:
Illinois
Iowa
Minnesota
Northwestern
Purdue
Wisconsin

Cinci doesn't come anywhere near the academic qualifications the B10 is looking for. Not even close. 0% chance of joning the B10 IMO.

[Larvell Blanks]

Cinci doesn't come anywhere near the academic qualifications the B10 is looking for. Not even close. 0% chance of joning the B10 IMO.

I think Mizzou is a favorite as the chancellor has already said they're willing to listen to what the B10 has to offer. You also open yourself up to the KC/St.Louis markets.

Agree on UC being out. Too big of a jump from Conf USA to the B East to the B10 in too short a time.

[aoxo1]

JCoz, I'll just say I don't particularly care about discussing the monetary aspect. I realize that LP is always correct when he brings it up, but that doesn't make it interesting. It is far more interesting to me, and I would wager you and everyone else as well, to discuss possibilities wrt things like this or a playoff by looking at how it would affect the product on the field.

I agree with your point that there could never be an undefeated matchup ala 2006. That is something to consider.

I also don't disagree with Herm that PSU belongs in the Big East as far as history and sensible rivalries go.

[JCoz]

JCoz, I'll just say I don't particularly care about discussing the monetary aspect. I realize that LP is always correct when he brings it up, but that doesn't make it interesting. It is far more interesting to me, and I would wager you and everyone else as well, to discuss possibilities wrt things like this or a playoff by looking at how it would affect the product on the field.

I agree with your point that there could never be an undefeated matchup ala 2006. That is something to consider.

I also don't disagree with Herm that PSU belongs in the Big East as far as history and sensible rivalries go.

Fair enough, my point was really only that the monetary element is well above this discussion and has no bearing on conference alignment.

Which brings me back to question I asked:

Now, my question would be what does national perception of the OSU/UM rivalry have to do with conference division alignments?

I'm not as old as Herm I would imagine, the big ten I grew up with had PSU in it. PSU make a ton of sense and to me having them in the B10 seems perfect.

Not saying Herm is wrong just that I don't see it the same way. The OSU/PSU rivalry is one of the best emerging rivalries in CFB if you ask me.

[Larvell Blanks]

I'm not as old as Herm I would imagine, the big ten I grew up with had PSU in it. PSU make a ton of sense and to me having them in the B10 seems perfect.

Not saying Herm is wrong just that I don't see it the same way. The OSU/PSU rivalry is one of the best emerging rivalries in CFB if you ask me.

I can see Herm's thought process here. I've always thought of PSU as an east coast team whereas the B10 is a midwest conference. As an independent, PSU had yearly games against teams like Syracuse, Pitt, and WVU. Hell, they played UC throughout the 80's. A better fit in the Big East with these natural rivals, IMO.

[DrPoove]

The Big Ten shouldn't be thinking about expansion. The Big Ten should be thinking about subtraction. As in, subtracting Penn State, going back to ten teams, and playing a round-robin schedule a la the Pac-10. Penn State doesn't belong in the Big Ten. Penn State belongs in the Big East.

I agree Poop State doesn't fit. See their non-conference schedule to begin with.

But say you eliminate them and you could get 2 of ND, Cincy, Pitt or Mizzou, do you do the deal???

[hermanfontenot]

How about we just get rid of Northwestern?

Get rid of Northwestern? No way. They're an original member of the conference, they enhance the conference's academic prestige more than any other member, and they're the only member in the Chicagoland area. They belong in the Big 10.

[dpdad]

Rutgers could be a real possibility if the Big Ten expands. It makes no geographical sense, but it makes perfect economic sense. Gives the Big Ten exposure in the New York City market. And we know it's all about the money.

[BruceK]

You have to think TV markets.

The Cinci (#33) market is already in - because they also follow Ohio State.
Pittsburgh (#23) market is already in - because they also follow Penn State.
Syracuse (#83)? Minor market - unless they have a substantial following in Rochester and Buffalo. Don't think they do.
Same with Louisville (#49)
Nebraska? I've heard it said that on game day the Huskers stadium is the second biggest city in the state.

Now add Missouri, and you add St Louis (#21) and KC (#32)

Markets already in: Chicago(#3) who also follows Illinois more than Northwestern
Does Penn State have a big following in Philadelphia (#4)?
Detroit (#11) but plunging down the rankings
Minneapolis (#15)
Cleveland (#18) who can hold off Orlando for another couple of years
Indianapolis (#25)
Columbus (#34)
Milwaukee (#35)

Market rankings are here
http://www.tvb.org/rcentral/markettrack/us_hh_by_dma.asp if you want to play along at home

Edit: Might also add that Notre Dame is in the #1 market - the whole country.

[aoxo1]

Now, my question would be what does national perception of the OSU/UM rivalry have to do with conference division alignments?

I think we got our wires crossed; that point of mine wasn't in relation to division alignments, but was more just a general point in response to yours about how big it is. You, of course, have pointed out that you realize that it isn't a big deal everywhere else. Just used to dealing with fans that always think their rivalry is considered hugely important on a national level when no one else really cares about it. But that's not you, so no disagreement.

I'm not as old as Herm I would imagine, the big ten I grew up with had PSU in it. PSU make a ton of sense and to me having them in the B10 seems perfect.

Not saying Herm is wrong just that I don't see it the same way. The OSU/PSU rivalry is one of the best emerging rivalries in CFB if you ask me.

I have some memories of PSU as an independent, but most of mine are since '93 as well. FWIW, Paterno tried to start an Eastern Athletic Conference (or something like that) in the 80s with Pitt etc but they all backed out and joined the Big East. Pretty much why the Pitt rivalry is dead now.

But a conference with Pitt, PSU, WVU, Syracuse, Rutgers, and I would include Miami as well even though they aren't that close, would have made a lot of sense. That said, if not for the old rivalries I think PSU has a lot more in common in general with the other Big Ten Universities than it does with the Big East or ACC schools.

[hermanfontenot]

I'm not as old as Herm I would imagine, the big ten I grew up with had PSU in it. PSU make a ton of sense and to me having them in the B10 seems perfect.

My formative years were the '80s. Back then Penn State was an Eastern Independent- THE Eastern Independent as far as success and prestige are concerned. I believe they still have more Lambert Trophies than any other school (the yearly award given to the top Eastern team.) Their rivals were Pitt, Syracuse, West Virginia, Boston College, Temple, etc. They very rarely played Big 10 schools at all.

Matter of fact, Penn State's first attempt at a conference affiliation came in 1982 when JoPa (then the AD) tried to organize the top Eastern independents into a football league. I believe his attempt failed when most of those schools joined the Big East, which then turned down Penn State's application. (Penn State was weak in basketball and wasn't in a major media market.)

Being the traditionalist I am, I've never felt Penn State was really a good fit. Also, Penn State's inclusion in the Big East would strengthen the football arm of that conference immensely.

[Ziner]

Also, Penn State's inclusion in the Big East would strengthen the football arm of that conference immensely.

And weaken the Big 10's immensely. Taking out what will routinely be a top 3 school in the Big 10 is suicide for a conference who already has the perception of being not that great.

[Bayou Tribe]

[
I'd be willing to accept that, providing they still play around Thanksgiving every year. It works in the SEC with Ala v Aub.

Bama and Auburn are both in the SEC West. But your point is true in a more general sense, in that each SEC team has a rivalry game against a team in the opposite division they ALWAYS play. I think Tenn-Bama is one, as is UF-LSU (they created this one, but it has become a huge game).

Pretty much. 6 teams in each division. 8 division games each year....

-- Every team in your division once (5 games).
-- One permanent from the other division (1).
-- Two rotating spots from other division (Basically 2 home and home contracts that are staggered).

[Spin]

Why would tOSU and Meatchicken ever be in different divisions???

If they split them east-west, they're in the same division. Especially if a western team were added.

The only possible way they would be split, is if it is split north-south.

[pod2dawg]

Most likely Rutgers

then Pitt

then Cinn/WVU.

Most $$$ with Rutgers market.

ND stays with the NBC confer..er I mean contract.

[hermanfontenot]

Most likely Rutgers

I disagree. Rutgers wouldn't be able to compete in anything but woman's basketball. And their footprint in the NYC market is WAY overrated. NYC is not a college football town. It's a basketball/baseball town, and when it comes to the former there are programs- namely St. John's when they're good- that are way ahead of Rutgers in terms of interest.

I really don't see what Pitt adds. Penn State already gives the conference a foothold in the Pittsburgh market. Cincinnati has no chance from an academic standpoint and I don't think there is any way Ohio State will put up with an in-state school being elevated to equal status.

[fairvis]

Notre Dame or bust as well... they are certainly the most natural fit.

The thing is, they make $15 million a year from NBC... right now, their Big Ten share would be more. Is NBC willing to make them a better offer for after 2015?

Notre Dame's existing football rivalries within the Big Ten (Michigan, Michigan State, Purdue) as well as successful all around sports programs make the most natural fit.

Do you think that Notre Dame would make more money as an independent in football and all other sports in the Big East or having all sports in the Big Ten? I think the latter would be true. Plus, the mythical Big Ten Hockey Conference can be formed as a super-conference that would have nearly all of its games aired on the Big Ten Network.

There are more things going on then just football in this, I think.

Notre Dame can play a Big Ten schedule (8 games) and still schedule USC, Navy, Stanford, and Boston College.

For any other school, I think Mizzou has the best shot. Good academics, good programs, strong support.

[CohibaTC]

Word is that the Big 10 may expand to 14 or even 16 teams.
http://www.chicagotribune.com/sports/co ... 0862.story