Big 10 looks for 12th team

[Chip R]

Originally Posted by HokieRed

Is there going to be any provision, like there is in the SEC, for playing historical rivals? That could complicate things. Also, I wonder if teams will soften non-conference schedules if they think they may have to play that 9th game in the championship?

I'd think most of the historical rivals would be in the same division except maybe Wisconsin and Michigan or Minnesota and Michigan.

[Hoosier Red]

Originally Posted by HokieRed

Is there going to be any provision, like there is in the SEC, for playing historical rivals? That could complicate things. Also, I wonder if teams will soften non-conference schedules if they think they may have to play that 9th game in the championship?

I think it actually makes scheduling easier in a way if they put current rivals in seperate divisions.

Then you could schedule 5 games against your division, 3 games against teams in the other division which will be rotated with one game specifically protected. That way you'd still be rotating 5 teams through two spots.

[Caseyfan21]

Originally Posted by bucksfan2

With the exception of ND Missouri makes the most sense. Geographically it doesn't effect travel. They aren't an up and coming program, rather an established program, just 2 removed from playing in the Big 12 title game with a chance to go to the BCS title game.

An uber-splash would be great. Notre Dame would make the most sense all around but they have the NBC contract and look at everything through green colored glasses. Texas is a fun idea but logistically difficult. Think of women's soccer or mens lacrosse or women's gymnastics from an OSU or PSU or UM. They no longer would be able to take a bus to most conference games, they would have to fly to Texas. No big deal but it all adds up, especially with AD's as large as some in the Big 10.

Missouri is also a land grant institution which fits the Big 10's mold. I think for administrators and presidents fitting the image of the Big 10 as a land grant institution is important....even more so than athletic success.

[Handofdeath]

Excellent article by the Daily Oklahoman


Big 10 expansion could trigger more
Posted by berrytramel
on December 17, 2009M at 9:16 am

All the talk about Big Ten expansion the last few days has led to some interesting theories on the ripple effect from leagues like the Big 12, Big East and ACC. But here’s a league that could be impacted by Big Ten expansion — the Pac-10.

A friend of mine with Pac-10 ties pointed out yesterday that the Pac-10 and Big Ten, joined at the hip by almost a century of Rose Bowl partnership, routinely follow one another. Usually with the Big Ten’s lead. Example: the Pac-10 finally joined the rest of college basketball with a post-season tournament only after the Big Ten joined the fray.
Would Texas or Colorado be involved in a shift of conferences? (AP Photo/Eric Gay)

Would Texas or Colorado be involved in a shift of conferences? (AP Photo/Eric Gay)

So if the Big Ten expanded, the Pac-10 might soon follow. And where would the Pac-10 look? Before the OU-Boise State Fiesta Bowl, I wrote, half-jokingly, that if Boise pulled the upset, the Broncos would be in the Pac-10 within a decade. That’s not likely to happen; the Pac-10 is proud of its academic status and would look down on Boise State, which was a junior college when UCLA’s Gary Beban won the 1967 Heisman Trophy.

The Pac-10 could go after Colorado, which always has been mentioned as a possible Pac-10 member. Or Texas, which flirted with the Pac-10 back in the ’90s and is being tossed around as a Big Ten expansion candidate, too. Colorado is a decent possibility and could jump without harmful ramifications. Texas would face politicial pressures if it tried to bolt and leave Texas A&M in a watered-down Big 12.

Utah and Brigham Young would make solid Pac-10 members, but it’s hard to see the Pac-10 take one without the other. Going as a package deal makes more sense.

Until this Big Ten talk came around, I believed that Boise State, Fresno State and Nevada were destined to soon join the Mountain West Conference, making it a 12-team league, with an automatic berth in the BCS quickly to follow.

Expansion talk always is fun, until schools actually start jumping around. Then there are profound winners and losers. I talked to SMU people a few years ago when OSU played the Mustangs down in Dallas. I was trying to determine how SMU had recovered from the probation and death penalty it received in the 1980s. SMU people said it had recovered OK from that awful stigma, but the school still had not recovered from the breakup of the Southwest Conference.

If Missouri or Colorado or even Nebraska bolted the Big 12, it would survive and probably even continue to thrive. If Texas left, the whole dang league probably would splinter.

Texas makes no sense geographically to the Big 10 (or the Pac-10) but would be a fabulous addition in most every other regard. Travel expenses would soar for all sports, which is no big deal to Texas, but how about Northwestern or Indiana or Michigan State? Does it want to fly its baseball teams to Austin every other year?

The most serene move in this whole discussion would be if Notre Dame just joined the Big Ten. And NBC holds the key to that. NBC and its solo contract with Notre Dame is why the Irish keep firing football coaches. Notre Dame knows that golden dome goose doesn’t have to play out forever. The Irish have to be nationally competitive for people to keep watching, which they are in increasingly fewer numbers.

If Notre Dame joined the Big Ten, the domino effect, at least east of the Rockies, would stop. But if the Big Ten pulls from another conference, it’s chaos.

[HokieRed]

Originally Posted by Caseyfan21

Missouri is also a land grant institution which fits the Big 10's mold. I think for administrators and presidents fitting the image of the Big 10 as a land grant institution is important....even more so than athletic success.

Don't mean to offend any grads of the University of Missouri, but there's no university in the Big Ten that would consider Missouri a peer institution academically.

[Caveat Emperor]

Originally Posted by HokieRed

Don't mean to offend any grads of the University of Missouri, but there's no university in the Big Ten that would consider Missouri a peer institution academically.

I don't get the academic fascination in these discussions. I understand that's the ultimate goal of a college or university, but the fact of the matter is that we're talking about membership in an ATHLETIC CONFERENCE. It seems silly to me that a group like the Big10 or Pac10 would care about such things.

And, for that matter, if Missouri's professors were body-swapped with Ohio State's professors, do you think anyone would really notice the difference? Ever? Academic quality of a university is ridiculously subjective and a function of a things like reputation, local/statewide student body, and even things like size of endowment (which doesn't really measure anything other than how rich your alums are). To say that Mizzou isn't a "peer" to places like Ohio State and Penn State is pretty arrogant. It's not like they're a community college or a "get your diploma at home" TV school.

[Brutus]

Originally Posted by Caveat Emperor

I don't get the academic fascination in these discussions. I understand that's the ultimate goal of a college or university, but the fact of the matter is that we're talking about membership in an ATHLETIC CONFERENCE. It seems silly to me that a group like the Big10 or Pac10 would care about such things.

And, for that matter, if Missouri's professors were body-swapped with Ohio State's professors, do you think anyone would really notice the difference? Ever? Academic quality of a university is ridiculously subjective and a function of a things like reputation, local/statewide student body, and even things like size of endowment (which doesn't really measure anything other than how rich your alums are). To say that Mizzou isn't a "peer" to places like Ohio State and Penn State is pretty arrogant. It's not like they're a community college or a "get your diploma at home" TV school.

For the most part I agree, but there is some pull with the CIC and the amount of grants received in research and such. It's not all academic, pardon the pun.

[Hoosier Red]

Originally Posted by Caveat Emperor

I don't get the academic fascination in these discussions. I understand that's the ultimate goal of a college or university, but the fact of the matter is that we're talking about membership in an ATHLETIC CONFERENCE. It seems silly to me that a group like the Big10 or Pac10 would care about such things.

And, for that matter, if Missouri's professors were body-swapped with Ohio State's professors, do you think anyone would really notice the difference? Ever? Academic quality of a university is ridiculously subjective and a function of a things like reputation, local/statewide student body, and even things like size of endowment (which doesn't really measure anything other than how rich your alums are). To say that Mizzou isn't a "peer" to places like Ohio State and Penn State is pretty arrogant. It's not like they're a community college or a "get your diploma at home" TV school.

No and they would likely improve in academic reputation with an inclusion the Big 10. Most of that is because it's in fact subjective.

The Big 10 is more than just athletics, and it's different from some(most?) conferences in that regard. The Big East was a bunch of independants who joined together to create a basketball superconference back in the early 80's, the Big Ten is a conference formed 100 years ago when athletics was one of many things that united them. At IU we had access to all Big Ten libraries for a inter library loans for example, and a lot of the schools balance each other out. For instance IU has the medical and law schools while Purdue has the engineering and agriculture.

[Unassisted]

Originally Posted by Caseyfan21

Missouri is also a land grant institution which fits the Big 10's mold. I think for administrators and presidents fitting the image of the Big 10 as a land grant institution is important....even more so than athletic success.

That's a good point. In the Big East, only Rutgers, West Virginia and Connecticut are 1862 land grant institutions.

[paintmered]

Originally Posted by Hoosier Red

At IU we had access to all Big Ten libraries for a inter library loans for example, and a lot of the schools balance each other out. For instance IU has the medical and law schools while Purdue has the engineering and agriculture.

I'm pretty sure that's a State of Indiana arrangement and not a Big Ten arrangement.

[Caseyfan21]

Originally Posted by Caveat Emperor

I don't get the academic fascination in these discussions. I understand that's the ultimate goal of a college or university, but the fact of the matter is that we're talking about membership in an ATHLETIC CONFERENCE. It seems silly to me that a group like the Big10 or Pac10 would care about such things.

And, for that matter, if Missouri's professors were body-swapped with Ohio State's professors, do you think anyone would really notice the difference? Ever? Academic quality of a university is ridiculously subjective and a function of a things like reputation, local/statewide student body, and even things like size of endowment (which doesn't really measure anything other than how rich your alums are). To say that Mizzou isn't a "peer" to places like Ohio State and Penn State is pretty arrogant. It's not like they're a community college or a "get your diploma at home" TV school.

The Big 10 does place a big emphasis on academics and any university that would join for athletics would need to be in line academically. From that standpoint the best choices would be Notre Dame and Pitt with Missouri further back. I believe (don't quote me) that all Big 10 universities are ranked in the top 75 nationally.

Keep in mind the University of Chicago is still a member of the Big 10 despite not competing in athletics. They are an academic member.

[Hoosier Red]

Originally Posted by paintmered

I'm pretty sure that's a State of Indiana arrangement and not a Big Ten arrangement.

Yes absolutely. My point was though that the schools are all part of a bigger academic community.

[Handofdeath]

According to some at the Oklahoman newspaper, Nebraska is the most likely choice because of geography and the football program to join the Big 12. TCU joins the Big 12 and goes to the South Division with Oklahoma State moving to the Big 12 North, which OSU would do in a heartbeat.

[HokieRed]

As somebody who's been an academic for almost forty years, I can tell you that there is some weight given to academic status in these matters. That's not to say that all such considerations can't be overriden for a school that really strengthens a conference athletically. But there are all sorts of cooperative ventures within universities that tend to get organized around conference affiliations. It does matter and it is a factor in the way administrators look at things.

[RedsManRick]

Originally Posted by HokieRed

As somebody who's been an academic for almost forty years, I can tell you that there is some weight given to academic status in these matters. That's not to say that all such considerations can't be overriden for a school that really strengthens a conference athletically. But there are all sorts of cooperative ventures within universities that tend to get organized around conference affiliations. It does matter and it is a factor in the way administrators look at things.

Exactly. And beyond the resource sharing, though such entities as CIC, a conference affiliation is, in large part, a branding exercise.