Shaq Returns with Instant Impact; Rotation Shrinks
April 18, 2010Indians Game #12 Open Thread: Tribe vs. White Sox
April 18, 2010According to numerous reports, the Big Ten conference is expected to speed up their decision-making time line in reference to expansion. The conference that already has 11 teams is looking to see if adding one or more universities to the mix would increase competition and revenue streams.
The Chicago Tribune reported yesterday that Big Ten representatives met in Washington today and could start identifying names within the next few weeks. The Bowl Championship Series has meetings scheduled for Phoenix later this month and that could be an opportune time to start discussing the matter with other conferences.
The writer of that article also mentioned that it seems that an addition of three teams is actually the most plausible now. Read after the jump for more information and my thoughts on what a 14-team or 16-team does for the image of the Big Ten.
Here are the actual words from the article in reference to additional expansion:
The thinking among those in touch with Big Ten officials is the conference likely will add at least three schools to end up with a 14- or 16-team league.
“I don’t think 16 is scaring anyone off, as long as you can find (five) that are a good enough fit,” said one source who has been consulted during the exploratory phase. “They’re looking long-term, across the horizon. What gives them the best shot at keeping value at a high level?”
I’m actually quite surprised that this is being discussed at all. The Big East is notably the only major conference in any sport to dare go much past the 12-team standard. In basketball, there are 16 teams in an incredible super conference that actually hurts some of the traditional schools.
When was the last time in the past decade or so that you ever saw St. John’s, DePaul or Rutgers with a successful year in basketball? It’s almost impossible because the bulk of their conference regular season schedule will include Connecticut, Syracuse, Villanova and Pittsburgh every season.
I would definitely be down for adding a team such as Notre Dame to the Big Ten. But to radically change the conference with 14 or even 16 teams seems a bit outlandish to me. What are your thoughts y’all?
13 Comments
I already wrote about this here in November:
http://www.rivalryesq.com/2009/11/30/1177117/the-big-tent-conference-fixing-the
Top my mind, this is a best-case for the Big Ten. The revenues and competitiveness all point toward the bigger league (assuming we can’t land Notre Dame or Texas straight-up, as seems unlikely).
16 and even 14 seems to be too much. I think a 12 team league would be great if they add a good successful program that can help compete. I’d love to see WV added, but I doubt it would happen.
As someone who watches the Big Ten very closely, I think a one team expansion would be fine, as long as it is not Rutgers. Nothing against Rutgers but if they are the only team to join then the expansion process is pretty much all for nothing.
I would rather see Pittsburgh or Nebraska (assuming Notre Dame would rather stay independent) join in a one team expansion scenario but ultimately I think the most attractive move would be to add three teams to increase the presence in the east (Pitt, Syracuse, Rutg.). Not sure how the Big Ten feels about that though, and it would destroy the Big East – in football at least.
The perfect solution is still ND for a 12 team league. The only minus from the B10 side is that they aren’t an AAU (research) school, but everything else is a perfect fit.
I’m just not sure who all gets added for the 14 or 16 teams. Gotta imagine one of those 3/5 teams is ND still. Who else though?
WVU? Good fit geographically and with sports. Terrible fit academically/research wise. Plausible.
Pitt? Good fit with everything really, but either Pitt or WVU leaving would help demolish the Big East. Pitt and WVU are the only real traditional football schools, so the other ones don’t have as big a reason to leave with basketball, as stated in the article.
Iowa St? Keeps a rivalry with Iowa, and it fits geographically/academically, but not so much with sports.
The list goes on. There are potential problems with basically every team besides Missouri, Pitt, and ND in my mind. Have to keep in mind that all the other sports will have to travel between schools besides the rich ones, too – adding someone from Texas/Oklahoma means a 25 hour busride for minor sports between Penn St and UT. Rutgers means a 19 hour busride between Rutgers and Minnesota.
It’s only a matter of time until they sell the conference naming rights. Say, the 5-Hour Energy Drink Conference. Or maybe the Pepsi 12-Pack.
I say they add Toledo, Kent State and Akron. They can call the league “Big MAC”.
Can’t do that, enginerd, that would take away the traditional UT-BG rivalry….wait, was that a crack at the Big 10?
One more team. NCAA should go to a 12 team, 2 divsion standard for all major conferences. A Big 10 with 16 teams means one of the other major coferences will fold.
4 16 team conferences is the way to go. Adding to existing:
Big10: Texas, A&M, Mizzou, Rutgers, Syracuse
SEC: WVU, KState, Kansas, Cincy
ACC: Pitt, UConn, Louisville, South Florida
Pac10: Okl, OkieSt, Colorado, Utah, Tech and Baylor
Worst fits:
Why would SEC want Cincy? But, they are only conference to take poor academic schools here, so they were only fit.
Louisville to ACC not the cleanest either.
Tech and Baylor to Pac10 doesn’t exactly appeal much to them either.
(side note: if you want to add Texas, you are adding A&M, they will be a package deal if they go anywhere)
Maybe the old Southwest conf. can get back together..Rice TCU, ^ Arkansas, that is if Texas leaves. Would not blame them, what with so much parity sneaking in with TEXAS TECH going 11-1 in 2008, and only losing ( in Austin) by a field goal & a punt return last year.
Hopefully, the Big 12 remains as is. Let the Big 10 play the reallignment game. Fans like the old rivalries. TEXAS A&M opened in 1876, and TX. UNIV. opened in 1883.The third State Flagship university, TEXAS TECH, in 1925. These are old foes and should stay that way.
sorry, huge oversight by me on not adding Nebraska (meant to leave Iowa State off, but don’t know how I forgot the Huskers).
adding them in and I’ll throw in ND (if they decide to join the party), which hurts Baylor and Cincy in these efforts:
Big10: Texas, A&M, Mizzou, Syracuse, ND
SEC: WVU, KState, Kansas, Louisville
ACC: Pitt, UConn, South Florida, Rutgers
Pac10: Okl, OkieSt, Colorado, Utah, TxTech and Nebraska
I agree. I wouldn’t mind seeing Notre Dame added and maybe a school like Pitt or Mizzou, but Rutgers and Syracuse belong in the Big East.
Tough but interesting. I would love to see 14 schools:
Add Syracuse, Missouri and ND…we can still keep the name Big-Ten as we will then be in ten states.
If we go 16, then I say make a push for one of the following:
(1) ND, Boston College, Syracuse, Missouri, Nebraska
(2) ND, Boston College, Syracuse, Missouri, Pittsburgh
The whole thing is interesting. You want to expand because it makes sense. But it’s like a game of Jenga. It’s fine for us to topple the Big East, but hurting Big 12 could be a major detriment if we didn’t get Texas. I can’t see them in the SEC, but you never know. That would be devastating for the Big Ten. So, you have to grab other great teams without giving too much advantage to other leagues.
ND has be realistic about who they are. They’re a natural fit, and I like coupling them with BC so they have a catholic partner. Boston is a similar city to Chicago and a great marketing. Rutgers sucks, give them to the ACC. Syracuse pairs well with Northwestern (better athletically). Pitt is a good fit as is Missouri. Nebraska is academically weak, but strong overall.
Either way, It should include ND. I would hate to see them shrivel up if it occurs without them. Plus, can you imagine a double-header of Michigan-Ohio State and ND-Penn State.
Sweet. (If not bloated)