| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Should the Big Ten expand to 12 teams? |
| yes |
|
40% |
[ 8 ] |
| no |
|
55% |
[ 11 ] |
| not sure |
|
5% |
[ 1 ] |
|
| Total Votes : 20 |
|
| Author |
Message |
umcp77
Joined: 07 Jun 2006
Posts: 62
Location: Triangle, Va.
Back to top |
 Posted: 07/27/07 10:39 pm ::: Will Big Ten welcome 12th member...and if so, who? |
Reply  |
|
Published reports this week quote Big Ten commissioner Jim Delany as saying the conference may consider bringing in a 12th member, conceivably to help boost the conference's planned cable TV channel. Some schools that are being bandied about as possible candidates include Syracuse and Rutgers from the Big East (both of which could tap into the New York City market), Pittsburgh from the Big East and Missouri from the Big 12 (St. Louis and Kansas City); all four schools are contiguous to, or in, current conference member states. If TV markets are a criteria, perhaps Maryland would be a darkhorse because of Washington/Baltimore; it'd be awful tough to wean the Terps from the ACC, but the lure of Big Ten football might tempt College Park officials if all things were equal financially between the two conferences. And of course Notre Dame is always discussed; perhaps this is a now-or-never ultimatum to South Bend.
From a women's basketball perspective, would you like to see the Big Ten add a 12th team -- and if so, which one?
_________________
2007-08 Maryland women's basketball: Proving there is life beyond Tennessee and Connecticut!
|
|
UTexRulz23
Joined: 17 Jun 2006
Posts: 2611
Location: Austin, Texas
Back to top |
| Posted: 07/27/07 10:50 pm ::: |
Reply |
|
| Well, 11 is a bad number. Yes, the conference should have 12 schools, but I think they should look at re-naming the conference. It was weird when it became 11, so something should change it!
_________________
The Houston Comets disbanding will always be the biggest black cloud in the history of the WNBA. Pitiful.
|
|
Queenie
Joined: 18 Nov 2004
Posts: 18031
Location: Queens
Back to top |
| Posted: 07/27/07 11:00 pm ::: |
Reply |
|
RU can't leave, damn it. RU football isn't ready for the Big Ten... Eleven... howthehellever many, and the RU-UConn rivalry's too big to walk away from.
If they steal Missouri, can they become the Big 12 and the former Big 12 become the Big Ten/Eleven? Or should they just form a massive Big 23 Conference?
_________________
Ardent believer in the separation of church and stadium.
|
|
Soonerville
Joined: 07 Mar 2007
Posts: 397
Location: Norman/NW OKC
Back to top |
|
bullsky
Joined: 04 Jun 2005
Posts: 20310
Back to top |
| Posted: 07/27/07 11:13 pm ::: |
Reply |
|
| I actually think we should cut down to 10. Penn State is the one that is farthest, location wise, but they are a strong Volleyball and Football school. But I think 10 is a good number. Maybe Northwestern should leave? I don't know.
_________________
"Don't do something until you get it right, do it until you can't do it wrong."
- Geno Auriemma
|
|
UTexRulz23
Joined: 17 Jun 2006
Posts: 2611
Location: Austin, Texas
Back to top |
| Posted: 07/27/07 11:58 pm ::: |
Reply |
|
| Orange][Krush wrote: |
| I actually think we should cut down to 10. Penn State is the one that is farthest, location wise, but they are a strong Volleyball and Football school. But I think 10 is a good number. Maybe Northwestern should leave? I don't know. |
Sorry to turn this to a football focus, but if the Big 10 actually had 10 teams, do y'all think they could have a conference championship game?
I wouldn't mind giving up Missouri, but we'd need someone to take their place in the north...who? Seems like Iowa and Iowa State should be united, but then the original problem isn't resolved.
_________________
The Houston Comets disbanding will always be the biggest black cloud in the history of the WNBA. Pitiful.
|
|
gopherfan
Joined: 29 Dec 2004
Posts: 2434
Location: Central Minnesota
Back to top |
| Posted: 07/28/07 12:06 am ::: |
Reply |
|
| That would defeat the purpose of it being the Big 11 wouldn't it? |
|
UTexRulz23
Joined: 17 Jun 2006
Posts: 2611
Location: Austin, Texas
Back to top |
| Posted: 07/28/07 12:11 am ::: |
Reply |
|
| gopherfan wrote: |
| That would defeat the purpose of it being the Big 11 wouldn't it? |
This is name business aside. The name is and has been ridiculous ever since Penn State joined. Certainly if they added a 12th, they'd think of a new name.
_________________
The Houston Comets disbanding will always be the biggest black cloud in the history of the WNBA. Pitiful.
|
|
boilerjay
Joined: 27 Feb 2005
Posts: 723
Location: Indianapolis, IN
Back to top |
| Posted: 07/28/07 8:10 am ::: |
Reply |
|
Should this happen...I expect it will be a school from the Big East.
UConn, Syracuse, Rutgers --the Big 10 clearly wants a New York market.
|
|
umcp77
Joined: 07 Jun 2006
Posts: 62
Location: Triangle, Va.
Back to top |
| Posted: 07/28/07 8:51 am ::: Color the best candidate Orange... |
Reply |
|
| boilerjay wrote: |
Should this happen...I expect it will be a school from the Big East.
UConn, Syracuse, Rutgers --the Big 10 clearly wants a New York market. |
Of the three, Syracuse probably has the most national appeal as a big-time athletic program, as well as having many alumni in the metro NYC area. It also had a longtime rivalry with Penn State that could be revived, and is the only BCS-level program in all of New York state. I don't think Connecticut and Rutgers bring enough definite long-term success to the table, particularly in football (the paramount area here). And who knows, perhaps moving to the Big Ten would jump-start SU women's basketball, whereas it's been behind the eight-ball in the Big East from day one.
_________________
2007-08 Maryland women's basketball: Proving there is life beyond Tennessee and Connecticut!
|
|
ladydawgs96
Joined: 23 Aug 2006
Posts: 734
Location: Georgia
Back to top |
| Posted: 07/28/07 11:22 am ::: |
Reply |
|
[quote="UTexRulz23"]Sorry to turn this to a football focus, but if the Big 10 actually had 10 teams, do y'all think they could have a conference championship game?[quote]
I thought that the NCAA wouldn't allow you to have a conference championship until a conference had 12 teams, hence the reason the ACC pilfered BC when they went after Miami and VaTech
|
|
UTexRulz23
Joined: 17 Jun 2006
Posts: 2611
Location: Austin, Texas
Back to top |
| Posted: 07/28/07 2:04 pm ::: |
Reply |
|
| ladydawgs96 wrote: |
| UTexRulz23 wrote: |
| Sorry to turn this to a football focus, but if the Big 10 actually had 10 teams, do y'all think they could have a conference championship game? |
I thought that the NCAA wouldn't allow you to have a conference championship until a conference had 12 teams, hence the reason the ACC pilfered BC when they went after Miami and VaTech |
I'm not sure about that...from a football perspective, all of the major conferences (even the Pac 10) need to have a conference championship game. It's just not fair to those that do.
Surely the Pac 10 could lure New Mexico and New Mexico State...or UNLV and Fresno State.
_________________
The Houston Comets disbanding will always be the biggest black cloud in the history of the WNBA. Pitiful.
|
|
PUmatty
Joined: 10 Nov 2004
Posts: 16359
Location: Chicago
Back to top |
| Posted: 07/28/07 2:38 pm ::: |
Reply |
|
| UTexRulz23 wrote: |
I'm not sure about that...from a football perspective, all of the major conferences (even the Pac 10) need to have a conference championship game. It's just not fair to those that do.
|
Not fair to those who do? They were the ones who made the choice to add one. Hard to argue about fairness when the conferences that have one could very easily cancel it if they wanted to. No one forces any conference to hold a championship game.
The Big 10 will never change their name. There is much to much history in the conference, which has existed for more than 100 years, and, unlike most conferences, exists for so much more than just athletics.
As for which team joins, it won't be Notre Dame. Delanay wants another television market for the Big 10 Network, and Notre Dame would just be a third university from Indiana. The boat has sailed on Notre Dame.
Others mentioned, like UConn, Iowa State or West Virginia aren't possibilities. As the B11 does more than just athletics they have a policy that every member institution must be a member of the American Association of Universities - "an association of 62 leading research universities in the United States and Canada." There are academic requirements to join that those three schools don't meet.
I expect Syracuse or nothing.
|
|
Grumps
Joined: 22 Sep 2004
Posts: 1054
Back to top |
|
UTexRulz23
Joined: 17 Jun 2006
Posts: 2611
Location: Austin, Texas
Back to top |
| Posted: 07/28/07 4:05 pm ::: |
Reply |
|
| PUmatty wrote: |
| UTexRulz23 wrote: |
I'm not sure about that...from a football perspective, all of the major conferences (even the Pac 10) need to have a conference championship game. It's just not fair to those that do.
|
Not fair to those who do? They were the ones who made the choice to add one. Hard to argue about fairness when the conferences that have one could very easily cancel it if they wanted to. No one forces any conference to hold a championship game. |
Not entirely true. Yes, that's theoretically possible, but it's not like the SEC, ACC, or Bix XII especially can up and cancel their championship games. Mack Brown has spoken numerous times about the fact that either all major conferences should have them or none should. I said in another thread something like 16 championships in the past 10 years, and the Pac 10 has 15. Just seems to me that a conference championship game should be almost a requirement, and why not? It brings in lots of extra revenue for the conference.
_________________
The Houston Comets disbanding will always be the biggest black cloud in the history of the WNBA. Pitiful.
|
|
PUmatty
Joined: 10 Nov 2004
Posts: 16359
Location: Chicago
Back to top |
| Posted: 07/28/07 4:15 pm ::: |
Reply |
|
| UTexRulz23 wrote: |
| PUmatty wrote: |
| UTexRulz23 wrote: |
I'm not sure about that...from a football perspective, all of the major conferences (even the Pac 10) need to have a conference championship game. It's just not fair to those that do.
|
Not fair to those who do? They were the ones who made the choice to add one. Hard to argue about fairness when the conferences that have one could very easily cancel it if they wanted to. No one forces any conference to hold a championship game. |
Not entirely true. Yes, that's theoretically possible, but it's not like the SEC, ACC, or Bix XII especially can up and cancel their championship games. Mack Brown has spoken numerous times about the fact that either all major conferences should have them or none should. I said in another thread something like 16 championships in the past 10 years, and the Pac 10 has 15. Just seems to me that a conference championship game should be almost a requirement, and why not? It brings in lots of extra revenue for the conference. |
None of the major conferences did have them. But the other conferences CHOSE to add a conference game. They din't have to do that. If they chose to put themselves at a disadvantage, why should it be up to other conferences to change what they do to fix it. It wasn't the B11 and the Pac10 that casued the inequity, it was the ones who now bitch and complain that they are at a disadvantage. So why should it be up to the Pac10 and B11 to fix it for them?
|
|
UTexRulz23
Joined: 17 Jun 2006
Posts: 2611
Location: Austin, Texas
Back to top |
| Posted: 07/28/07 4:43 pm ::: |
Reply |
|
| PUmatty wrote: |
| UTexRulz23 wrote: |
| PUmatty wrote: |
| UTexRulz23 wrote: |
I'm not sure about that...from a football perspective, all of the major conferences (even the Pac 10) need to have a conference championship game. It's just not fair to those that do.
|
Not fair to those who do? They were the ones who made the choice to add one. Hard to argue about fairness when the conferences that have one could very easily cancel it if they wanted to. No one forces any conference to hold a championship game. |
Not entirely true. Yes, that's theoretically possible, but it's not like the SEC, ACC, or Bix XII especially can up and cancel their championship games. Mack Brown has spoken numerous times about the fact that either all major conferences should have them or none should. I said in another thread something like 16 championships in the past 10 years, and the Pac 10 has 15. Just seems to me that a conference championship game should be almost a requirement, and why not? It brings in lots of extra revenue for the conference. |
None of the major conferences did have them. But the other conferences CHOSE to add a conference game. They din't have to do that. If they chose to put themselves at a disadvantage, why should it be up to other conferences to change what they do to fix it. It wasn't the B11 and the Pac10 that casued the inequity, it was the ones who now bitch and complain that they are at a disadvantage. So why should it be up to the Pac10 and B11 to fix it for them? |
It's called evolution of the game. Yeah, the other conferences changed the status quo, but sometimes the status quo needs to be changed. With the beginning of the Bowl Championship Series and learning how that actually works, several conferences chose to add games because they felt that it was best for the game as a whole. Turns out...they were right. Overall it does produce excellent games while turning in several other buesiness-related aspects. There are some disadvantages, like the fact that the team who loses is potentially taking themselves out of the national championship game (see the Oklahoma-Kansas State game from a couple years ago). Regardless of the fact that these conferences added them (not exactly sure when though), the individual coaches, players, etc... didn't choose it. Hell, not even necessarily all of the member schools chose it. But now, it's something they're stuck with. Strategy wise, more ofthen than not, the championship game is a bad thing (also the reason why we rarely see instances of top teams playing each other in non-conference times) because while Strength of Schedule is important, the weight it has isn't nearly significant to counteract a loss.
Regardless of all that, you're argument is circular and promotes bad thought process. Just because something is the way it is, doesn't mean it should stay that way (there are so many examples which prove this that I don't even think I need to provide one). It's called natural progression. As the college football game becomes more competitive, the conference championship game promotes that competition. Yes, it's not the Big 10's fault that other conference's have a championship game, and I'm not blaming them. But, it doesn't mean that they shouldn't have one. Still, it doesnt' change the fact that the championship game is slowly and slowly becoming much more of a big deal and I go back to my contention that all major conferences should have one. You still haven't shown any reason why they shouldn't have one. *I realize that my original point was about fairness, but this is the underlying issue.*
_________________
The Houston Comets disbanding will always be the biggest black cloud in the history of the WNBA. Pitiful.
|
|
BallState1984
Joined: 27 Aug 2006
Posts: 1892
Location: Halfway between Muncie and West Lafayette
Back to top |
| Posted: 07/28/07 6:04 pm ::: |
Reply |
|
| If they ask me they should boot Penn State, which has NOTHING in common with the other Big Ten schools, and go back to being a TEN school conference.
_________________
Terminally afffected with Our Girl Syndrome and proud of it!
|
|
mred
Joined: 19 Mar 2007
Posts: 256
Back to top |
| Posted: 07/30/07 11:32 am ::: |
Reply |
|
| PUmatty wrote: |
Others mentioned, like UConn, Iowa State or West Virginia aren't possibilities. As the B11 does more than just athletics they have a policy that every member institution must be a member of the American Association of Universities - "an association of 62 leading research universities in the United States and Canada." There are academic requirements to join that those three schools don't meet.
|
Actually, Iowa State has been a member of the Association of American Universities since 1958.
http://www.aau.edu/aau/members.html
|
|
PUmatty
Joined: 10 Nov 2004
Posts: 16359
Location: Chicago
Back to top |
| Posted: 07/30/07 11:49 am ::: |
Reply |
|
| UTexRulz23 wrote: |
| With the beginning of the Bowl Championship Series and learning how that actually works, several conferences chose to add games because they felt that it was best for the game as a whole. |
If you start there, your argument is built on a false foundation. Conferences didn't add a game because it was good for the sport. They added a game to make money. End of story.
|
|
UTexRulz23
Joined: 17 Jun 2006
Posts: 2611
Location: Austin, Texas
Back to top |
| Posted: 07/30/07 2:19 pm ::: |
Reply |
|
| PUmatty wrote: |
| UTexRulz23 wrote: |
| With the beginning of the Bowl Championship Series and learning how that actually works, several conferences chose to add games because they felt that it was best for the game as a whole. |
If you start there, your argument is built on a false foundation. Conferences didn't add a game because it was good for the sport. They added a game to make money. End of story. |
I conceed that they did it to make money. Fact still remains, the evolution of the game of college football, and the bowl championship series made conference championship games not only a profitable choice, but also a competitive option that's helping the game of football. Money drives most decisions in this world, that shouldn't surprise anyone. Still doesn't change the fact that my other points remain and that conference championships should be a part of each major conference.
_________________
The Houston Comets disbanding will always be the biggest black cloud in the history of the WNBA. Pitiful.
|
|
PUmatty
Joined: 10 Nov 2004
Posts: 16359
Location: Chicago
Back to top |
| Posted: 07/30/07 4:10 pm ::: |
Reply |
|
| UTexRulz23 wrote: |
| PUmatty wrote: |
| UTexRulz23 wrote: |
| With the beginning of the Bowl Championship Series and learning how that actually works, several conferences chose to add games because they felt that it was best for the game as a whole. |
If you start there, your argument is built on a false foundation. Conferences didn't add a game because it was good for the sport. They added a game to make money. End of story. |
I conceed that they did it to make money. Fact still remains, the evolution of the game of college football, and the bowl championship series made conference championship games not only a profitable choice, but also a competitive option that's helping the game of football. Money drives most decisions in this world, that shouldn't surprise anyone. Still doesn't change the fact that my other points remain and that conference championships should be a part of each major conference. |
You basically have no argument other than other conferences do it, so everyone should do it. You keep saying it is progress, but give no compelling reason that it actually is positive - while giving several why it is not. You originally were calling for fairness, but when it is was pointed out that made little sense you have moved on to another baseless argument - the progress of the game. Yet from your original post on, the only benefit you have mentioned was that it provides "excellent games." Moving beyond the fact that this is certainly debateable, you are calling for the NCAA to demand that the B11 add one more team and the Pac10 add two more teams simply to give one or two more "good games" a year?
And yet you said I had circular reasoning?
|
|
UTexRulz23
Joined: 17 Jun 2006
Posts: 2611
Location: Austin, Texas
Back to top |
| Posted: 07/30/07 4:57 pm ::: |
Reply |
|
| PUmatty wrote: |
| You basically have no argument other than other conferences do it, so everyone should do it. |
Um...no. How about money, increased competition, avoids ties and picks a clear conference winner, etc... Even if that was my only argument, you haven't answered it.
| Quote: |
| You keep saying it is progress, but give no compelling reason that it actually is positive - while giving several why it is not. |
It is progression. It's movement of the college football world. Competition isn't staying the same, it is constantly growing. At the point that some conferences are willing to sit back and refuse to change thier ways on the premise that "this is the way it's always been", they then are not making the wisest decision. You're only argument seems to be that other conferences started it so why should the Big 10 do it as well. Again, I retort, that just because something has never been done, doesn't mean that it shouldn't happen. My whole point here has been to try and say that the Big 10 should have a championship game, yet you have not yet even attempted to show why they should not.
| Quote: |
| You originally were calling for fairness, but when it is was pointed out that made little sense you have moved on to another baseless argument - the progress of the game. |
Yes I'm calling for fairness. Other conferences have the competitive balls and do it, why shouldn't other wannabe major conferences. Sure, it knocks teams out of BCS contention, but it makes the game of college football all the more exciting. (And just to preempt a "BCS Bad" argument, it would be the same way if there was a playoff system.) I don't in any way see why this argument (progress of the game) is "baseless". Again, you are providing little rationale to support your thoughts and the rationale I am getting is based on logical fallacies.
| Quote: |
| Yet from your original post on, the only benefit you have mentioned was that it provides "excellent games." Moving beyond the fact that this is certainly debateable, |
This really isn't debatable, or at least you haven't shown why it is debatable. Imagine what the Big 10 championship game last season would have been. Ohio State plays Wisconsin (who got jipped, IMO, last season). Yes, a conference championship game typically provides a good competitive atmosphere, has high ratings, is profitable, and is something teams can get excited about. Plus, on a competitive scale, it weeds out the boys from the men.
| Quote: |
| you are calling for the NCAA to demand that the B11 add one more team and the Pac10 add two more teams simply to give one or two more "good games" a year? |
No, obviously not. I would not ever want the NCAA to usurp the soverignty of conferences. Still, the fact remains that these conferences SHOULD (read that, SHOULD!) have a championship game. The Big 10 wants to add another school anyway, so this shouldn't be a problem. As for the Pac 10, (it's a little off topic, since we're talking about the Big 10)I still say that plenty of schools would love the opportunity to get out of "mid-major" status and into "major" status and join the confence (New Mexico, New Mexico State, UNLV, Nevada, Fresno State, etc...). Plus, with the BCS system that we have now, the more games are played, generally speaking, the better the system turns out. (And before you even go there, I grant that there are anomolies, I'm speaking in general terms.)
| Quote: |
| And yet you said I had circular reasoning? |
Yes, I did. And you do. You haven't articulated any real reason as to why conference championship games in the Big 10 are BAD or SHOULDN'T happen. Go back to that ESPN ranking 1-119 of the programs. Notice how many Big 10 and Pac 10 conference champions there are for the past decade. I'm pretty sure (I forget the exact number) that there are at least 15 for each conference. Ties suck. Let's figure this out. A conference championship games seems like the logical choice.
_________________
The Houston Comets disbanding will always be the biggest black cloud in the history of the WNBA. Pitiful.
|
|
Thrillrider08
Joined: 04 Jun 2007
Posts: 12142
Location: Indianapolis, IN
Back to top |
| Posted: 07/30/07 5:00 pm ::: |
Reply |
|
| Queenie wrote: |
RU can't leave, damn it. RU football isn't ready for the Big Ten... Eleven... howthehellever many, and the RU-UConn rivalry's too big to walk away from.
If they steal Missouri, can they become the Big 12 and the former Big 12 become the Big Ten/Eleven? Or should they just form a massive Big 23 Conference? |
Find someone to add and call it the Big Ten anyway. I would love Notre Dame to join since they play a lot of Big Ten schools anyway but Notre Dame loves keeping its $$$ and all of the National exsposure.
Would could they add   Piittsburgh? I don't know! Can't add Missouri it would mess up the Big XII |
|
Mirage32
Joined: 28 Jun 2006
Posts: 281
Location: Illinois
Back to top |
| Posted: 07/30/07 7:05 pm ::: |
Reply |
|
I agree with PUMatty that Syracuse (I'll add that the current president of SU is the former Chancellor of the University of Illinois) would seem the most likely choice, but others will be considered.
Although I believe it unlikely they will join, the argument that the Big Ten wants to increase its national exposure applies to ND more than anyone else. Getting in the NY market by having SU join does not even compare to the national exposure they would get from ND. It is not just another school from Indiana, its fan base is national.
I would like to see Mizzou considered. They already have natural and current rivalries with Iowa and Illinois. Unfortunately, this will not be the deciding factor. Money (ie potential tv coverage, etc) will be. From my home the only two places I would not feel comfortable doing a day trip to see a game are Minneapolis and Happy Valley. From the fans' perspective why add Syracuse? See above.
_________________
Diana Taurasi: "I also read that Tennessee and UConn aren't playing anymore, and all I can say is that is some bullsh**."
|
|
|
|
