Big Ten expansion decisions fraught with peril

[GSG]

What the Big Ten should do is...

By Pat Forde

ESPN.com

 

Who's that behind the microphone, getting all that face time this week in Chicago? Why, it's none other than Jim Delany.

 

You're enjoying yourself this spring, Jim. I can see that. And understand it, too.

 

Jim Delany and the Big Ten's expansion plans are causing a commotion.

It's like old times. Your Big Ten Conference is in the spotlight, the subject of relentless conversation and speculation as you circumspectly explore expansion. The entire nation is watching, waiting, wondering what the Big Ten will do, and wondering what the ripple effect will be.

 

It's been a while since you commanded this much attention and flexed this much muscle. Your league hasn't won a football national championship since 2002, a men's basketball national championship since 2000. Women's hoops? Last title was in 1999. We won't even talk about baseball. (OK, we will: Minnesota, 1964.)

 

Dynasties in volleyball, fencing and women's lacrosse don't exactly galvanize your large and loyal fan base. You've spent so much time staring up at the Southeastern Conference that your neck hurts -- and your pride, too. So this opportunity to remake the college sports map -- and to make the SEC and every other league react to what the Big Ten is doing -- has got to feel good.

 

But the decisions that lie ahead are fraught with peril. There are at least as many potential wrong moves as right ones.

 

Which is why I'm here to offer my opinion on what would be the best course. Not just for the Big Ten, but for college athletics as a whole.

 

In 21 years as commissioner of the Big Ten, you've skillfully coaxed a stodgy league into plenty of gradual changes. You oversaw Penn State's arrival as the 11th team, took a swing (or several) at Notre Dame, introduced the postseason basketball tournament, helped make instant replay a reality in football, and were instrumental in the creation of the lucrative Big Ten Network.

 

But do you really want to be the guy who pulls the pin on a grenade that blows up college sports as we currently know it?

 

An expansion to 16 teams would do that, Jim. It would necessitate a pillaging of at least two conferences, most likely Pittsburgh, Rutgers and Syracuse from the Big East and Missouri and Nebraska from the Big 12. It would trigger additional robberies elsewhere, trickling all the way down through the 120-member Football Bowl Subdivision. Would you relish being the guy who throws the first brick through the store window and starts this looting process?

 

It would destroy what little collegiality is left in college sports. And I think you're old-school enough for that to matter.

 

But mergers and acquisitions are just the start of the issues associated with creating a 16-team monstrosity. Then you'd have to figure out how to organize the thing. Feel free to ask former Big East commissioner Mike Tranghese how much fun that was -- he's still hearing coaches complain about scheduling in his sleep.

 

One source tells me the league wants four divisions of four teams, and two eight-team "sides." Good luck trying to make that work while maintaining traditional rivalries and some semblance of geographic coherence. (Example: Michigan and Ohio State must play each other, but if you put those two and Penn State on, say, the Eastern side, the league tilts like the Leaning Tower of Pisa.)

 

Then there's this part of the equation: If you go to 16 and the SEC has to follow, you run the risk of making your rivals even more powerful and expanding the gap between them and yourself. Adding either the southern third of the ACC (Miami, Florida State, Georgia Tech, Clemson) or a southern foursome from the Big 12 (Texas, Texas A&M, Oklahoma and Oklahoma State) would only solidify the SEC's primacy.

 

So 16 is more trouble that it's worth. Now that we've agreed on that, let's look at Option II: going to 14 teams.

 

You can add three members without too much struggle, especially if you go get Nebraska, Missouri and Rutgers. All three are believed to be waiting by the telephone with held breath and crossed fingers, just hoping you'll call.

 

And although administering a 14-team league is more difficult than a 12-team league, it's also inherently less difficult than 16.

 

Don't expect the Big Ten light to shine on ND.

But here's who you aren't getting in either the 16- or 14-team scenario, Jim: Notre Dame and Texas. They're the two golden tickets in this expansion game. Problem is, they know it. And they have things situated so well right now that it's hard to see either giving that up.

 

Notre Dame could conceivably make more money in the Big Ten -- but perhaps not so much more that it's worth sacrificing all the autonomy it currently enjoys. The Fighting Irish play who they want to play, when they want to play them, and where. They have a spot at the BCS table, a fat TV contract and perpetual public staying power in spite of their recent mediocrity. Why trade a Thanksgiving weekend game on prime time against USC for an 11 a.m. kickoff in Champaign?

 

And Texas? No. It's a geographic joke to consider transporting non-revenue teams from Austin to State College or Minneapolis. And, once again, you'd be asking a school that is contemplating its own TV network possibilities to abandon a potential bonanza. Plus, you cannot get the Longhorns without also getting Texas A&M, which is only a moderately attractive wingman.

 

So that leaves the 12-team option, Jim. Not the sexiest or the boldest move. But the best move. Go grab one school and get yourself on even footing with the other power brokers in college sports.

 

Missouri offers proximity and two large TV markets (St. Louis and Kansas City). Rutgers offers the window into New York City, and something of an Eastern ally to Penn State. Nebraska offers the most football cachet.

 

Me? I'd take Nebraska. Not many TVs to subscribe to the Big Ten Network in that state, but the football appeal is nationwide. And the fan base is among the most rabid in America -- they care too much to tolerate any long-term lapses in football, which means the Cornhuskers should always be viable.

 

In Pat Forde's plan, Nebraska is the one team that could put a charge into the Big Ten.

Fans everywhere will tune in to watch Nebraska play Michigan and Ohio State. Not sure the same can be said for Missouri or Rutgers.

 

This way you can have two sensibly sized divisions and play a championship game, making your conference relevant into December. You can schedule with greater inclusion and fewer cries of favoritism than in a 16-team league. There still will be geographic divisional issues, but they are surmountable.

 

And think of this ancillary benefit: When you take Nebraska, and Colorado wanders off to join the Pacific-10, the Big 12 will be the Big Ten. And you will be the Big 12. Your leagues can simply switch logos and carry on. No fuss, no muss.

 

Most importantly, Jim, you will have done right by the rest of college sports. There are plenty of things wrong with the current model -- starting with the BCS -- but the future could be worse if this gets out of hand.

 

You can keep the pin in the grenade and still improve your league, Jim. And by all means, enjoy the attention along the way. Just be sure to choose wisely.

 

Pat Forde is a senior writer for ESPN.com. He can be reached at ESPN4D@aol.com.

 

ESPN Link

[Caven]

ESPN desperately wants the B10 to do nothing major because they are worried about long term being cut out of anything but the SEC.

[knapplc]

ESPN desperately wants the B10 to do nothing major because they are worried about long term being cut out of anything but the SEC.

Bingo. Notice Forde's article is fairly dripping with sarcasm. He has little respect for the Big 10 or this process, and it shows.

 

It's OK. I have little use for Forde.

[schlumper]

One source tells me the league wants four divisions of four teams, and two eight-team "sides." Good luck trying to make that work while maintaining traditional rivalries and some semblance of geographic coherence. (Example: Michigan and Ohio State must play each other, but if you put those two and Penn State on, say, the Eastern side, the league tilts like the Leaning Tower of Pisa.)

 

There is a way to structure it without severe imbalance or breaking up most rivalries.

Quoted from a post of mine on another forum, makes the assumption that Notre Dame, Nebraska, Missouri, and another Big East school join.

I'd think a good 16 team system would be 4 pods

West:

Nebraska

Wisconsin

Iowa

Minnesota

 

North:

Purdue

Michigan State

ND

Michigan

 

South:

Illinois

OSU

Missouri

Indiana

 

East:

NW (only school that doesn't fit geographically into its pod, but necessary to maintain rivalries)

Penn State

Rutgers

Other school (from here on refered to as OS)

 

2 pods form a division. Pods rotate every year.

Y1: E&N vs. W&S

Y2: E&W vs. N&S

Y3: E&S vs. W&N

 

Each team plays all teams in it's division as well as one fixed game from all other pods (to maintain rivalries) for a 9 game conference schedule plus a CCG.

 

Example:

OSU would have 3 fixed games: Minnesota, Michigan, and Penn State

OSU would play:

Y1: all south and west teams, Michigan, Penn State, and the CCG if they win their division

Y2: all south and north teams, Minnesota, Penn State, and the CCG if they win their division

Y3: all south and east teams, Michigan, Minnesota, and the CCG if they win their division

 

Hopefully the NCAA has no problem with divisions changing every year. (and will change the maximum BCS bowl bids per conference to 3)

 

Fixed games:

 

East:

 

Penn - Minnesota, Michigan State, OSU

NW - Wisconsin, ND, Illinois

Rutgers - Nebraska, Purdue, Indiana

OS - Iowa, Michigan, MU

 

West:

Nebraska - Rutgers, ND, MU

Wisconsin - NW, Michigan State, OSU

Iowa - OS, Purdue, Indiana

Minnesota - Penn, Michigan, Illinois

 

North:

Purdue - Rutgers, Iowa, Indiana

Michigan State - Penn, Wisconsin, Illinois

ND - NW, Nebraska, MU

Michigan - OS, Minnesota, OSU

 

South:

Illinois - NW, Minnesota, Michigan State

OSU - Penn, Wisconsin, Michigan

Missouri - OS, Nebraska, ND

Indiana - Rutgers, Iowa, Purdue

 

Penn/Iowa, Purdue/Illinois, and Penn/ND rivalries (at least the ones documented in wikipedia) are the only ones lost.

[Husker_x]

It ain't show friends. It's show business. Delany is standing at a place and in an environment where he can secure the destiny of an iffy conference and usher in a new era of college football. As for ESPN, I have a sociopathic indifference what happens to them. Frankly their year-in programming caters to a few select teams like Notre Dame and short shrifts just about everything else. The Big XII has needed a new outlet for ages. The Big 10 was smart enough to make one, and now has a powerful bargaining chip that Delany would be a fool not to exploit to its fullest potential.

[junior4949]

I actually agree with just about everything he said. If the Big 10 picks too many pockets, well there's something to be said for going first. The SEC will get more teams, and they will become even more powerful than the Big 10. Even if the Big 10 would get Texas and ND, the SEC is sure to get OU and probably more. I could see them going after OU for football and KU for basketball plus other major players.

 

While Forde may have little respect for the Big 10, I think we all have to admit that a lot of the country as a whole doesn't have a lot of respect for the Big 10. We all dreaded for the past 5 or so years seeing a Big 10 team in the NC game. In 2009, the Big 10 finally had their first winning bowl season since 2002. Here's how they stacked up in that time period:

2003: 3-5

2004: 3-3

2005: 3-4

2006: 2-5

2007: 3-5

2008: 1-6

I think Forde makes a good point. If the Big 10 can't get Texas or ND, they probably should just settle for taking Nebraska because adding all those other schools named in rumors will only cause the Big 10 problems with other conferences.

[knapplc]

It. Is. Not. Just. About. Football.

 

I don't know why some people can't seem to figure that out. There are literally billions of dollars at stake here, in sports-related activities and in education. The educational side of that is the bigger slice of the pie.

 

These institutions don't simply exist to field football teams.

[Nexus]

It. Is. Not. Just. About. Football. Athletics.

 

I don't know why some people can't seem to figure that out. There are literally billions of dollars at stake here, in sports-related activities and in education. The educational side of that is the bigger slice of the pie.

 

These institutions don't simply exist to field football athletic teams.

 

I made a minor edit to your post, knapplc.

 

I've been saying this too.

 

The biggest chunk of $ would be gained on the academic side. The sports side of it would be chump change in comparison, but still nothing to sneeze at for what it is.

[Judoka]

Lancelot: Look, let me go back in there and face the peril.

 

Gallahad: No, it's too perilous.

 

Sorry, I couldn't resist.

[kansas husker]

ESPN desperately wants the B10 to do nothing major because they are worried about long term being cut out of anything but the SEC.

Bingo. Notice Forde's article is fairly dripping with sarcasm. He has little respect for the Big 10 or this process, and it shows.

 

It's OK. I have little use for Forde.

 

The sarcasim is laid on pretty thick, notice how often he calss delany by jim. Almost as if he is talking down to him.

 

I don't foresee it being that difficult to facilitate a 16 team league. However he does make a solid point about texas and nd.

[shyndy]

isnt mizzou Forde's alma mater? Maybe he would rather stay in the big twelve north than what would likely be a more competitive division for Mizzou in the Big 10?

[Nexus]

Via ESPN's college basketball columnist Andy Katz:

 

No one seems to know in what direction the Big Ten will go in regards to expansion, but the buzz among coaches at the Big East meetings was the possibility that the Big Ten would just add Nebraska -- a brand name that will give it 12 teams and a championship game -- and call it a day. Outside of Notre Dame, Nebraska may be the only school the Big Ten would add and not do anything else. Other schools being looked at -- Missouri, Rutgers, Syracuse, Pitt, Connecticut, Vanderbilt, Maryland, or any other school that you want to toss out there -- might not add enough financial value by itself. The other option that hasn't been discussed is if the Big Ten just threatened to change the legislation requiring 12 teams to host a championship game. If there are any dissenters, then the Big Ten can threaten to poach the other leagues. Of course, such doomsday scenarios are moot if the Big Ten decides to add only one team.

 

LINK

[zoogs]

And think of this ancillary benefit: When you take Nebraska, and Colorado wanders off to join the Pacific-10, the Big 12 will be the Big Ten. And you will be the Big 12. Your leagues can simply switch logos and carry on. No fuss, no muss.

 

Haha!

 

Truth be told, a 12 team scenario does seem more feasible.