illwauk

I wonder... do the non-football members of the Big East honestly think its more worth it to stay in a bloated league that only stands to become even more massive rather than breaking off into their own league? I'm actually surprised its stayed intact as long as it has.

Northwest Indiana I always (begrudgingly) thought of Wisconsin as the New Jersey to Chicago's NYC: Newark = Milwaukee New Brunswick/Rutgers = East Milwaukee/UWM Seton Hall = Marquette Princeton = Madison Atlantic City = Wisconsin Dells Seaside(-guidos) = Lake Geneva Twin Cities = Phily

The fact that so many schools are joining different conferences for football than they are for every other part only confirms a thought I've had for awhile... each sport should have its own governing body instead of just one large umbrella organization like the NCAA. It would help avoid situations like South Florida sending its non-revenue teams all the way to Chicago and Milwaukee just so their football team can have a shot at the BCS title.

At least Louisiana Tech wouldn't look stuck in BFE compared to the rest of the WAC footprint. Although I would expect C-USA to go after Tech to replace whatever Texas team the Big XII swipes from them if when the Longhorns leave.

I took the ACC/Football-Big East/Basketball idea and decided to run with it. I wrote all the teams down (well, typed them in notepad) and then asked myself "is this more of a football school or a basketball school?" Big East (Basketball) Cincinnati Rutgers Syracuse Connecticut Louisville UNC Duke BC Georgia Tech Villanova Temple ACC (Football) West Virginia South Fla. Pitt Miami Clemson Maryland Virginia Tech Florida St NC State Virginia Wake Forest It wound up breaking down pretty evenly. Although their footprints overlap more than before, the Big East is still primarily a northern conference and the ACC is mainly a southern conference. The only thing I'm not quite sold on is Georgia Tech and Wake Forest. I put Wake in the ACC so that NC State wouldn't be the only tobacco road school left, but looking at it now, I thinking of maybe swapping them around. I also added Temple back to the Big East since I never did like them in the MAC and with the Big East now being a non-BCS conference, they don't have to put on airs of having standards that are above a school like Temple (which apparently hasn't been THAT bad as of late). Of course, this is all hypothetical since I'm pretty sure there's already too much bad blood between the conferences' administrators to actually work something like this out.

Not sure AT&T Park is big enough to host the game.

In the end, the Pac 12 went with the most obvious option. Now on to site selection for their championship game. The divisional format and site for the title game are items two and three in terms of importance. when the school presidents/chancellors meet next week the biggest issue they have to discuss and agree to is about how revenues are going to be shared. Voting to switch from an appearance-based model that favors USC and UCLA to an equal-distribution model is more important. Keep in mind yesterday, the City of Pasadena approved $152M renovation of the Rose Bowl. It will expand club seats from 550 to 2,500. It would also widen up to 12 access tunnels at the end zones, double the number of concession stands and increase restrooms. Plans for Rose Bowl Renovations Very true about the Rose Bowl, but I would think they avoid that as a host site, due to the fact that a Pac 12 champion would likely return to the Rose Bowl for the actual Tournament of Roses in the same stadium about a month later. That and the fact that it's already a current Pac 12 team's home site. If anything, that's an incentive to make the Rose Bowl the PERMANENT host. Why not give your schools the advantage of having just played at the Rose Bowl? (Not that much of an advantage is needed to beat a Big Ten team in a bowl game nowadays.) But if I had to put money on it, I'd say they'll use the Big XII method of rotating the game between the NFL stadiums in its footprint. Of course, the Bay Area makes the most geographic sense if/when the Niners new stadium ever gets built.

Yea... I was gonna say, it's 15,000. Playing at Union Park (I don't know or care what the shill name is) is a smart move for Nova... especially if they can pack the place, which shouldn't be all that hard. Temple's probably kicking themselves as to why they didn't think of it sooner. In fact, why does Temple even still play football... has Bill Cosby threatened to stop funneling money to the school or something?

This is my sticking point as well. Artificially high mark-ups are just as unethical as outright counterfitting. Besides, it's hard to feel for these same "privately-owned" sports franchises that play in taxpayer-funded palaces. And they really can't cost that much to produce. When I was growing up there were tons of places that would make "authentic" Packers jerseys for cheaper than what you can buy a licensed replica for now. 1) Agreed. 2) I make an exception if the customization is something that would CLEARLY never make it on the field/floor/ice (like an obvious nickname or a 3-digit number). I used to know a guy called Ugly that was known for wearing his "UGLY 00" Packers jersey to the club (back in 2002 when you could still rock jerseys at the club). To me, that's different from the 5'9, 250 lb. guy with his own (real) name who insists on a receivers number on top of everything else. That said... I'm personally more than content with a team-logo hoodie. 3) For hockey and baseball, sure... but even for football and basketball jerseys?

Wisconsin's not in the same division as Nebraska, Minnesota OR Iowa. Granted, the rivalry with Iowa is contrived, so I'm not too upset about that. But they're either gonna kill the most prolific rivalry in college football or COMPLETELY miss the boat on such a natural rivalry between the two Big Reds red & white teams. I decided I can't in good conscience help UW push that "Big Red" nonsense. It's just part of their ridiculous wannabe-ivy complex.

This... if for no other reason is why the Brew Crew needs to go back to royal & yellow. So that Mr. Brewer can finally look like himself again.

So the North Carolina schools wielded their ridiculous amounts of political power to make sure they were split up into separate divisions? Wait... what? <checks the alignments> I could've SWORE they were in the same division. In large part because it's the only logical reason for having divisions that make no logical sense. <adds my post to the "evidence that the ACC's alignment makes no damn sense" pile>

Well the Big Ten doesn't have to use the division in the other sports. The ACC only uses theirs in football, basketball is just a single table. But you do have a point. I have no idea what the ACC's divisions are for football. That may have something to do though, with the fact that I slowly stopped watching the conference after expansion. Most other conferences do use the divisions though. The fact that the ACC doesn't probably stands as further testament to the patent ridiculousness of their divisional setup. That, and the ridiculous amount of political power the North Carolina schools have in the ACC, which is the reason for the ridiculous set-up in the first place.

Ford Field already hosts the MAC Championship game. Why give a field 2 conference championships? Because its a damn good place to watch a football game <insert obligatory Lions joke here>. They really did a great job designing that place because even halfway up the upper deck feels close to the field. Besides, I'm not aware of any rule that says the same field can't host two conference championships, and if there is, I don't think Ford Field would have any trouble cutting ties with the MAC to get the Big Ten. The MAC could either go to Cleveland (since half the conference is from Ohio anyway) or go back to rotating the game between the east and west champions.

No surprises here. Soldier Field is a piece of crap and the media fears all things Detroit, so it was basically between Cleveland and Indy with the latter having more hotel space and being the established home of the mens hoops tourney. I'd love to see the game being held at Lambeau, but some sort of high speed rail from Downtown Milwaukee to Lombardi Avenue would probably have to be built to make that feasible. If you've actually been inside Soldier Field its not a piece of crap at all. At least it feels like a football stadium instead of a Mall (like Lucas Oil) but still good choice I was referring to the notoriously terrible playing surface... I can't imagine the Big Ten being thrilled at the idea of holding its December championship game on a field that usually has to be re-sodded by November. Although I can honestly say I've never heard anything negative about the fan experience there.

No surprises here. Soldier Field is a piece of crap and the media fears all things Detroit, so it was basically between Cleveland and Indy with the latter having more hotel space and being the established home of the mens hoops tourney. I'd love to see the game being held at Lambeau, but some sort of high speed rail from Downtown Milwaukee to Lombardi Avenue would probably have to be built to make that feasible.

Not sure I understand your beef here... it sounds like you don't like contrived "species" like Mighty Ducks and Golden Gophers, but Timberwolves and Devil Rays are actual animals. But I agree... Wild is a terrible name that would've been more appropriate for RHI.

Why am I seeing the teal Marlins mentioned so often... I know teal is generally frowned upon, but I thought it was more/less a consensus that the Marlins were one of the few teams it worked work for... and very well at that. Also, some of y'all need to learn the difference between "unpopular" and "obscure."

I never understood this rationale for why the BiG is bad. Most MLB's monograms could conceivably be used by any other city that shares the inital... What exactly makes the Phillies "P" say Philadelphia any more than it says Pittsburgh or Phoenix? By my count, only the Angels, Marlins, Astros, White Sox, Blue Jays, Rockies, Diamondbacks, Mariners and Brewers currently use monograms that refer to their nicknames... that's 9 out of 28 teams. The fact that it even contains a B is actually more than most teams do to refer to their nickname. I guess it's more of the fact that they have a logo of baseball equipment, which is why I prefer the hats the Brewers wore after the BiG. That's the same reason I don't like the Canucks stick in rink logo, it's just hockey equipment. That I can understand... I remember wondering why their logo was just a glove until the first time someone pointed out the mb. And FWIW, the second version of the post-BiG unis are the best ones they ever wore IMO. Too bad they coincided with a time when the franchise was in shambles and Bud Selig took to dressing in drag claiming to be his daughter Wendy

I hated these when they first came out, but they actually look timeless by todays standards. Sadly, I doubt they'd ever consider going back to them. Staying with football unis, even though I despised the Cowboys and their cheating, ref-bribing a**es when they wore these, they were still my favorite Cowboys unis up until they intro'd the current throwbacks.

Alstott makes that uniform look better than it actually was. And the fact that Mike Alstott was always listed at FB, a position he didn't even play after his first couple of years, made him look better than he actually was. His multiple pro-bowl selctions should've rightfully gone to William Henderson

I never understood this rationale for why the BiG is bad. Most MLB's monograms could conceivably be used by any other city that shares the inital... What exactly makes the Phillies "P" say Philadelphia any more than it says Pittsburgh or Phoenix? By my count, only the Angels, Marlins, Astros, White Sox, Blue Jays, Rockies, Diamondbacks, Mariners and Brewers currently use monograms that refer to their nicknames... that's 9 out of 28 teams. The fact that it even contains a B is actually more than most teams do to refer to their nickname. Anyway, apparently my love of the BiG is unpopular around here Other unpopular POVs: -I hate the Packers G (which is tantamount to pissing on the pope's hat in most parts of WI). In fact, I pretty much share every opinion about their identity that Gothamite is known to echo around here. -I like grey facemasks... but usually only when paired with traditional-looking uniforms. -For the most part, I have no problem with monochrome... particularly if it's a darker color like navy, black or forest green. -I like the Broncos throwbacks and pretty much any time a team uses brown & gold.

I know, I know, we hear that all the time, but I just don't see it. If anything, the current Brewers uniforms evoke the Coors or Schlitz scripts, sharing very little design with Miller. Hmmm... overall you do have a point. But using a curled-M and not expecting people to see Miller would be like a team using an old-english D and not expecting them to think "Detroit Tigers."

I don't think we're in the clear yet... unless Texas (and Oklahoma) also said no to the SEC as well and no one's reported it. Besides, all it has to take is the Big Ten going after Rutgers (which according to all sources is close to a done deal) for this to start right back up again.

I have a question now... and hopefully someone whose more up on the Pac-10 can answer it for me. I saw on ESPN's bottom line last night that the SEC is really only interested in Texas and Oklahoma. If the SEC got them to join without their "dance partners," then what happens to A&M, Tech and Okie State? Would the Pac-10 still want them without the bigger schools it was assumed they'd come with... or would they be more likely to lock in on the Mountain West and go after the Utah schools, TCU and perhaps even Boise?