B1G Expansion and more Conference Realignment

[WoodyHayes1951]

This is quickly looking like a great basketball conference and not much of a football conference.

Not too many teams move when they are at the pinnacle of football.

for the most part we are dealing with "potential". Rutgers could be a sleeping giant.

recruiting and coaching are the keys to success. coaching is something that has to be decided at the school level. I have heard from some buckeye sources that Rutgers and Maryland needed to present athletic plans to the Big Ten before entering the conference. hopefully there will be a minimum standard for all members.

recruiting is something much more easily done when you are associated with the regions. No coincidence that Nebraska has recruited more in Ohio since 2010 and that ann arbor gets most of their players from Ohio.

With Ohio, Illinois, Pennsylvania, New Jersey, Maryland/DC, Virginia,North Carolina(and maybe Georgia in the future) we now have a damn good base to attempt recruiting.

 

[Woody Tressel]

WoodyHayes1951,

Excellent points.

 

[WoodyHayes1951]

WoodyHayes1951,

Excellent points.

thanks,

we have to deal with facts unfortunately and that is that Chicago wants nothing to do with FSU, whom is really the only "power" available right now

 

[Muck]

In regards to the concerns over adding football 'powers'...

The B1G currently has four of the programs that are generally acknowledged as 'kings' (Ohio State, TSUN, Nebraska & PSU).

That is more than any other conference. The Big XII has two (Texas & Oklahoma). The Pac-12 has one (USC). Even the media darling SEC only has one (Alabama). Yes the SEC has a number of 'near' kings (Florida, LSU, Auburn, Tennessee) but even including those the B1G stacks up fine if you widen your view from the last few years to a long term perspective.

Rutgers & Maryland (as well as the other ACC schools being mentioned as potential members) sit in areas with more than enough FB talent to sustain strong programs. All that is needed is the right coach & an athletic department that is dedicated to FB success.

South Carolina wasn't an afterthought in FB when they joined the SEC.

In all fairness, though, have you tried hiking through the Appalachians?

In 1660 a 6'2" red haired Englishman stepped off a boat in Elizabeth City Shire (Norfolk) Virginia & headed west into the hills. Three hundred years later my grandfather left those same hills & moved to Ohio (my mother was a freshman at WVU at the time).

Yeah it's fair to say I've walked the green rolling hills of West Virignia a bit.

And if the B1G is discussing 18, they just need to buckle down and go to 20. Four divisions of five teams each. This way, you get two divisional knockout games before the B1G title game--that's potentially another $40 million/year (using the $20 million/yr. Fox pays for the B1G Title Game) that could be made, or an additional $2 million/school/year.

That would require a change in NCAA rules.

 

[WAHusker]

would disagree with your KINGS. You put Texas in there but not Florida, LSU or Oregon? Do i really need to explain myself on that?

Yes the B1G has 4 "traditional" powers, but only one was a contender this year and probably next year, OSU. Mich wont be great next year with all the young talent. NU offense will be scary, but their deffense will lose them games. PSU defense will be good, but their sanctions will hinder them for years to come. Wisky will fall on its face, as well as MSU. THat leaves OSU being great, PSU, NU and Mich being decent, NW being wild, and the rest sucking. Sounds a lot like the SEC, B12 and PAC next year as well (1 good team, 2-3 decent teams and the rest suck).

 

[Muck]

would disagree with your KINGS. You put Texas in there but not Florida, LSU or Oregon? Do i really need to explain myself on that?

Yes the B1G has 4 "traditional" powers, but only one was a contender this year and probably next year, OSU. Mich wont be great next year with all the young talent. NU offense will be scary, but their deffense will lose them games. PSU defense will be good, but their sanctions will hinder them for years to come. Wisky will fall on its face, as well as MSU. THat leaves OSU being great, PSU, NU and Mich being decent, NW being wild, and the rest sucking. Sounds a lot like the SEC, B12 and PAC next year as well (1 good team, 2-3 decent teams and the rest suck).

'King' status is not based on short term success it's based on sustained performance over decades.

LSU is just outside of king territory. Florida is on the verge of being a king but still needs a bit more time to fully cement their position. What sets the SEC apart is that they have a number of teams that just are just outside king status. Historically speaking Tennessee has a stronger argument for being the 10th king (instead of Miami or FSU) before UF or LSU.

Oregon is not a king by any definition.

You don't make 100 decisions based on what TSUN & PSU did "this year & probably next year".

To be honest being too top heavy is probably detrimental to the kings of a conference in the long term. Look at the relative struggles PSU has undergone since joining the B1G or the drop in status Arkansas has felt since joining the SEC.

 

[strigori]

In regards to the concerns over adding football 'powers'...

The B1G currently has four of the programs that are generally acknowledged as 'kings' (Ohio State, TSUN, Nebraska & PSU).

That is more than any other conference. The Big XII has two (Texas & Oklahoma). The Pac-12 has one (USC). Even the media darling SEC only has one (Alabama). Yes the SEC has a number of 'near' kings (Florida, LSU, Auburn, Tennessee) but even including those the B1G stacks up fine if you widen your view from the last few years to a long term perspective.

Rutgers & Maryland (as well as the other ACC schools being mentioned as potential members) sit in areas with more than enough FB talent to sustain strong programs. All that is needed is the right coach & an athletic department that is dedicated to FB success.

South Carolina wasn't an afterthought in FB when they joined the SEC.

In all fairness, though, have you tried hiking through the Appalachians?

In 1660 a 6'2" red haired Englishman stepped off a boat in Elizabeth City Shire (Norfolk) Virginia & headed west into the hills. Three hundred years later my grandfather left those same hills & moved to Ohio (my mother was a freshman at WVU at the time).

Yeah it's fair to say I've walked the green rolling hills of West Virignia a bit.

And if the B1G is discussing 18, they just need to buckle down and go to 20. Four divisions of five teams each. This way, you get two divisional knockout games before the B1G title game--that's potentially another $40 million/year (using the $20 million/yr. Fox pays for the B1G Title Game) that could be made, or an additional $2 million/school/year.

That would require a change in NCAA rules.

If the power conferences go past 16, they will break off from the NCAA. Even at 16, you are looking at only 5 conferences that really count. SEC, B1G, Big XII, PAC12 and ACC, The ACC is the weakest, and if Big XII decides to go to 12 or 16, the ACC probably falls off to Big East level sort of thing. Leaving only a power 4 who rule football. If those 64 teams were to really decide they didn't want to deal with the NCAA, they could easily break off and form their own organization. Which could be interesting if they only allowed competition between the Power 4.

 

[Ocean]

In regards to the concerns over adding football 'powers'...

The B1G currently has four of the programs that are generally acknowledged as 'kings' (Ohio State, TSUN, Nebraska & PSU).

That is more than any other conference. The Big XII has two (Texas & Oklahoma). The Pac-12 has one (USC). Even the media darling SEC only has one (Alabama). Yes the SEC has a number of 'near' kings (Florida, LSU, Auburn, Tennessee) but even including those the B1G stacks up fine if you widen your view from the last few years to a long term perspective.

Rutgers & Maryland (as well as the other ACC schools being mentioned as potential members) sit in areas with more than enough FB talent to sustain strong programs. All that is needed is the right coach & an athletic department that is dedicated to FB success.

South Carolina wasn't an afterthought in FB when they joined the SEC.

In all fairness, though, have you tried hiking through the Appalachians?

In 1660 a 6'2" red haired Englishman stepped off a boat in Elizabeth City Shire (Norfolk) Virginia & headed west into the hills. Three hundred years later my grandfather left those same hills & moved to Ohio (my mother was a freshman at WVU at the time).

Yeah it's fair to say I've walked the green rolling hills of West Virignia a bit.

And if the B1G is discussing 18, they just need to buckle down and go to 20. Four divisions of five teams each. This way, you get two divisional knockout games before the B1G title game--that's potentially another $40 million/year (using the $20 million/yr. Fox pays for the B1G Title Game) that could be made, or an additional $2 million/school/year.

That would require a change in NCAA rules.

If the power conferences go past 16, they will break off from the NCAA. Even at 16, you are looking at only 5 conferences that really count. SEC, B1G, Big XII, PAC12 and ACC, The ACC is the weakest, and if Big XII decides to go to 12 or 16, the ACC probably falls off to Big East level sort of thing. Leaving only a power 4 who rule football. If those 64 teams were to really decide they didn't want to deal with the NCAA, they could easily break off and form their own organization. Which could be interesting if they only allowed competition between the Power 4.

You have to have rules and you have to have an unbiased governing body to enforce the rules. I don't see how it would be beneficial to any of these schools to break off from the NCAA or prevent themselves from being able to schedule smaller schools not associated with these super conferences. I'm sure being able to have as many home games as possible is a pretty good reason as to why it would be irrational to try and exclude a large number of smaller schools eager to play on the road for some $$. Also, would it even be legal for these conferences to do that?

 

[strigori]

In regards to the concerns over adding football 'powers'...

The B1G currently has four of the programs that are generally acknowledged as 'kings' (Ohio State, TSUN, Nebraska & PSU).

That is more than any other conference. The Big XII has two (Texas & Oklahoma). The Pac-12 has one (USC). Even the media darling SEC only has one (Alabama). Yes the SEC has a number of 'near' kings (Florida, LSU, Auburn, Tennessee) but even including those the B1G stacks up fine if you widen your view from the last few years to a long term perspective.

Rutgers & Maryland (as well as the other ACC schools being mentioned as potential members) sit in areas with more than enough FB talent to sustain strong programs. All that is needed is the right coach & an athletic department that is dedicated to FB success.

South Carolina wasn't an afterthought in FB when they joined the SEC.

In all fairness, though, have you tried hiking through the Appalachians?

In 1660 a 6'2" red haired Englishman stepped off a boat in Elizabeth City Shire (Norfolk) Virginia & headed west into the hills. Three hundred years later my grandfather left those same hills & moved to Ohio (my mother was a freshman at WVU at the time).

Yeah it's fair to say I've walked the green rolling hills of West Virignia a bit.

And if the B1G is discussing 18, they just need to buckle down and go to 20. Four divisions of five teams each. This way, you get two divisional knockout games before the B1G title game--that's potentially another $40 million/year (using the $20 million/yr. Fox pays for the B1G Title Game) that could be made, or an additional $2 million/school/year.

That would require a change in NCAA rules.

If the power conferences go past 16, they will break off from the NCAA. Even at 16, you are looking at only 5 conferences that really count. SEC, B1G, Big XII, PAC12 and ACC, The ACC is the weakest, and if Big XII decides to go to 12 or 16, the ACC probably falls off to Big East level sort of thing. Leaving only a power 4 who rule football. If those 64 teams were to really decide they didn't want to deal with the NCAA, they could easily break off and form their own organization. Which could be interesting if they only allowed competition between the Power 4.

You have to have rules and you have to have an unbiased governing body to enforce the rules. I don't see how it would be beneficial to any of these schools to break off from the NCAA or prevent themselves from being able to schedule smaller schools not associated with these super conferences. I'm sure being able to have as many home games as possible is a pretty good reason as to why it would be irrational to try and exclude a large number of smaller schools eager to play on the road for some $$. Also, would it even be legal for these conferences to do that?

The NCAA exists as its members desire. No one is required to be a member. I'm not saying there would be no governing body, just one focused on a clear set of rules for the conferences that focus on sports. Currently the Power 5 conferences are governed by the same entity that oversees the University of Nebraska Kearny

Take for instance the 'cost of attendance' money that was proposed to athletes. The Power 5 schools were by and large for it. It was the WAC, MAC and the 1-AA and D-2 schools that blocked it.

 

[HuskerShark]

Absolutely. the Big East has somewhat decent Baseball. Why can't we?

At 16 then I say something like this. It would preserve a lot of good things. Keep things regional but at 3 conference games per division that leaves us with 5 or 6 to play with so that all areas aren't untouched for all teams and so schools don't feel locked into their particular region.

Nebraska

Iowa

Minnesota

Wisconsin

Illinois

Purdue

Indiana

Northwestern

Ohio State

ann arbor

Rutgers

Sparty

Penn State

Maryland

North Carolina

Virginia

I like this set-up

 

[Notre Dame Joe]

You have to have rules and you have to have an unbiased governing body to enforce the rules. I don't see how it would be beneficial to any of these schools to break off from the NCAA or prevent themselves from being able to schedule smaller schools not associated with these super conferences. I'm sure being able to have as many home games as possible is a pretty good reason as to why it would be irrational to try and exclude a large number of smaller schools eager to play on the road for some $$. Also, would it even be legal for these conferences to do that?

I'm not buying the game of monopoly the big10 posters are playing because of the perceptions of the rules. The East coast schools won't accept that they will be in a league run out of Ohio, Texas, or Los Angeles. The way it's supposed to work is that the people in New York City and Washington DC make the rules and the rest of the country follows. It may look like I'm just randomly naming cities here but I just can't imagine a huge board room of crusty admins saying "Well we'll just sit tight and hope the folks of Chicago give us permission."

Or more simply, the Big East and ACC are not going to disband so they can join the other 3 nearby conferences.

 

[WoodyHayes1951]

Big Ten offices are already being opened on the East Coast. I think in NYC.

If GIT and UNC join then Buckeye insiders have already been talking about Big Ten offices in Atlanta/Charlotte.

 

[WoodyHayes1951]

Absolutely. the Big East has somewhat decent Baseball. Why can't we?

At 16 then I say something like this. It would preserve a lot of good things. Keep things regional but at 3 conference games per division that leaves us with 5 or 6 to play with so that all areas aren't untouched for all teams and so schools don't feel locked into their particular region.

Nebraska

Iowa

Minnesota

Wisconsin

Illinois

Purdue

Indiana

Northwestern

Ohio State

ann arbor

Rutgers

Sparty

Penn State

Maryland

North Carolina

Virginia

I like this set-up

I think it would bode well. I like the concept of even divisions and looking at these every team would have won their division once in the past 20 years or so except Minnesota, Indiana and maybe Rutgers. Indiana, with all due respect, will not win any division combination we come up with, Minnesota went 10-3 in 2003(so did Iowa and Nebraska), and Rutgers should be able to compete in their division.

It keeps the, lets call it "mission statement" of almost every team.

EDIT: UMD(not GIT, yet),UVA, UNC. in division with familiar schools

PSU. is in a division with the east coast teams they have been looking for

OSU. stays in a division with ann arbor

RU. in a division with traditional Big Ten teams that they know with Big fanbases

Sparty. stays in a division with ann arbor

ann arbor. stays with familiar schools

Illinois,Purdue,Indiana, Northwestern. they all stay with rivals in the division which should have the most parody

Nebraska. Gets much easier road trips for fans, burgeoning rivalry with Wisky and don't remain isolated from the eastern and southern portion of the league.

Minnesota. gets rivals Floyd and Axe plus Nebraska.

Iowa. Gets all their rivals

Wisky. Same as Nebraska with both their traditional Big Ten rivals

And with 6 extra Big Ten games to schedule we can rotate teams pretty easily.

OSU can play RU, Sparty and ann arbor every year plus say UMD, PSU, PU, Illinois, Nebraska and Minnesota for a home and home and then switch for two years so we really won't be going more than two years without playing everyone. Which is like the Big Ten before expansion.

And my idea for the 9th Big Ten game which could be played at a neutral site would be to give the option to team with 5 home games to decide which one of the five they don't want at home so say Nebraska has OSU, PSU, Iowa, UVA and RU at home. The AD chooses which one they want to play outside of Lincoln. That way they get to keep what they deem to be the sexiest matchups at home for the fans.

 

[MR Red]

Absolutely. the Big East has somewhat decent Baseball. Why can't we?

At 16 then I say something like this. It would preserve a lot of good things. Keep things regional but at 3 conference games per division that leaves us with 5 or 6 to play with so that all areas aren't untouched for all teams and so schools don't feel locked into their particular region.

Nebraska

Iowa

Minnesota

Wisconsin

Illinois

Purdue

Indiana

Northwestern

Ohio State

ann arbor

Rutgers

Sparty

Penn State

Maryland

North Carolina

Virginia

I like this set-up

I think it would bode well. I like the concept of even divisions and looking at these every team would have won their division once in the past 20 years or so except Minnesota, Indiana and maybe Rutgers. Indiana, with all due respect, will not win any division combination we come up with, Minnesota went 10-3 in 2003(so did Iowa and Nebraska), and Rutgers should be able to compete in their division.

It keeps the, lets call it "mission statement" of almost every team.

GIT,UVA, UNC. in division with familiar schools

PSU. is in a division with the east coast teams they have been looking for

OSU. stays in a division with ann arbor

RU. in a division with traditional Big Ten teams that they know with Big fanbases

Sparty. stays in a division with ann arbor

ann arbor. stays with familiar schools

Illinois,Purdue,Indiana, Northwestern. they all stay with rivals in the division which should have the most parody

Nebraska. Gets much easier road trips for fans, burgeoning rivalry with Wisky and don't remain isolated from the eastern and southern portion of the league.

Minnesota. gets rivals Floyd and Axe plus Nebraska.

Iowa. Gets all their rivals

Wisky. Same as Nebraska with both their traditional Big Ten rivals

And with 6 extra Big Ten games to schedule we can rotate teams pretty easily.

OSU can play RU, Sparty and ann arbor every year plus say GIT, PSU, PU, Illinois, Nebraska and Minnesota for a home and home and then switch for two years so we really won't be going more than two years without playing everyone. Which is like the Big Ten before expansion.

And my idea for the 9th Big Ten game which could be played at a neutral site would be to give the option to team with 5 home games to decide which one of the five they don't want at home so say Nebraska has OSU, PSU, Iowa, UVA and RU at home. The AD chooses which one they want to play outside of Lincoln. That way they get to keep what they deem to be the sexiest matchups at home for the fans.

I had a very similar thought about divisions. This might get too complicated but I also had a thought that maybe each team would have a protected crossover from each of the other divisions. For example Nebraska would play the 3 teams in their division and Illanois, OSU and PSU every year (i just picked those teams randomly). Then the other teams we didnt play would be rotated like normal. So essentially each team would have 6 conference oponents that they always play and if/when we go to a 9 game schedule we would be able to rotate the rest of the teams home and away on a 6 year cycle.

hope this made some kind of sense.

 

[WoodyHayes1951]

I just think if you have protected crossovers in a conference with 16 teams or more than you lose a ton of the conference feel and you won't see certain teams in what feels like an eternity.