Big Ten wants to adding a member

[Braden]

What about Boise State? I don't know a whole lot about the University but they've had a good program for a while, and maybe a move up would get them the kind of respect they should have gotten last year.

[KevinMcD]

What about Boise State? I don't know a whole lot about the University but they've had a good program for a while, and maybe a move up would get them the kind of respect they should have gotten last year.

Except Big Ten country only extends out to Iowa. Boise, Idaho is half way across the country. BSU is in Pac-10 Country.

[Mingjai]

-The Big 12 takes Colorado State from the Mountain West to replace Iowa State in their North Division. Feeling comfortable with the eight schools they have, the MWC stays put (if they really wanted a ninth member that badly, they could snatch Northern Arizona from the Big Sky, but that's left field kind of talk).

[bLUE GOGGLES]Say the Big Ten takes Mizzou or Iowa St. That would leave an open slot in the Big 12.

If anything, I think the Big 12 would snatch BYU or TCU. I heard from BYU's mid-90s AD that the Big 12 originally wanted BYU instead of Baylor, but Gov. Richards refused to allow her state schools (UT, A&M, and TT) to join without her alma mater (Baylor). It's an interesting rumor, it might be true but even if it were what does that get you--nothing! BYU is still in a mid-major conference.

The interesting thing to me is what the Pac 10 would do if the Big Ten went to 12 teams. The way I look at it, the Pac 10's best choice would be to add two "academically acceptable" rival schools to go with their 5 existing rivalries. That means either BYU/Utah or Colorado/CSU. The Cal State system schools (Fresno St. or SDSU) don't have a chance, because the Pac 10 wants "research institutions." If the Pac 10 cares about diversity of sports, then BYU/Utah is the way to go, because they offer 38 varsity sports (BYU 19, Utah 17) to 31 by CU/CSU (CU 16, CSU 15). But the combination of political conservatism in the state of Utah combined with BYU's no Sunday rule would mean if the Pac 10 did expand, it would have to attract CU/CSU.

CU and Mizzou/ISU leaving would leave two open slots in the Big 12, which would mean they don't have choose between BYU or TCU--they can take both. From the BYU side, I think BYU's attraction is its 64,000 seat stadium, national fan base, 19 NCAA varsity sports, and top 30 finishes in the Director's Cup 8 or 9 of the last 10 years.

Anyway, those are just my thoughts. I don't see any of this realistically happening, because the Big Ten and Pac 10 don't really want to expand, and CU has a pretty good gig going on in the Big 12 North (70-3 anyone?).[/bLUE GOGGLES]

Finally regarding Boise State, I don't see them moving anywhere but the MWC. I was born and raised in Idaho, so I consider myself familiar with Boise. I think BSU's main problems are the it (1) doesn't have very many varsity sports, (2) is in a small population area (#118 TV market in the US), and (3) the university itself isn't established enough for Pac 10 or Big 10 tastes. As long as it can break the BCS in the WAC, I don't see BSU ever joining the MWC. For it to happen, it may take a year in which a MWC team (BYU/TCU/Utah) goes undefeated the same year a WAC school (BSU/Hawaii/Fresno) goes undefeated and the BCS takes the MWC school. That's a lot of "ifs".

[HedleyLamarr]

The only Mountain West school that would consider leaving would be TCU.

Remember, the Mountain West broke away from the 16-team WAC because they wanted to be their own small conference again.

[tajmccall]

Here are my guesses based on reason.

Obvious: Notre Dame. This could be done, but it would take more work than I think Notre Dame would be willing to put in on the football side. Plus the Irish have A TON of rivals they would be abandoning. But the main ones could still play. AKA Army, USC etc.

Regional: Iowa State. Makes a whole lot of sense on many levels. Already has a built in rival with Iowa, and fits into the core region of the Big Ten.

Market: Texas. I don't see this making any sense besides to get a huge school with a large revenue base. But is the Big Ten that big of an upgrade over the Big XII? I don't think so for Texas.

Blackhorses, aka second fiddles: Pitt (Penn St. gets a natural rival, in large city.) UNLV (way out there, but tell me that the Rebs wouldn't adore getting into a real conference.) Colorado. (They never made sense in the Big XII to me, despite the roots. Strong/Respectable in many sports which the powers that be must like.) Kentucky. (A long shot, but great in basketball and respectable at times in football. I follow this that if Texas would listen, why wouldn't Kentucky. Would make a rival with OSU.)

My dream: St. Cloud State. My alma mater. Unfortunately they are D2 in all sports and known more for drunken riots than sports.

[KevinMcD]

Plus the Irish have A TON of rivals they would be abandoning. But the main ones could still play. AKA Army, USC etc.

Aren't most of their rivals in the Big 10? (Michigan, Michigan St, Penn St, Purdue)

They would have 8 conf games, and 4 non-conference games, so they could still play Navy, USC, Army, Pitt, ETC.....

[TBGKon]

Plus the Irish have A TON of rivals they would be abandoning. But the main ones could still play. AKA Army, USC etc.

Aren't most of their rivals in the Big 10? (Michigan, Michigan St, Penn St, Purdue)

They would have 8 conf games, and 4 non-conference games, so they could still play Navy, USC, Army, Pitt, ETC.....

I agree, but the Irish have a field-day with their own personal contract. I wonder if there is any way the Big Ten and the Irish could form a happy medium and agree upon something that would benefit both parties.

[rams80]

Plus the Irish have A TON of rivals they would be abandoning. But the main ones could still play. AKA Army, USC etc.

Aren't most of their rivals in the Big 10? (Michigan, Michigan St, Penn St, Purdue)

They would have 8 conf games, and 4 non-conference games, so they could still play Navy, USC, Army, Pitt, ETC.....

I agree, but the Irish have a field-day with their own personal contract. I wonder if there is any way the Big Ten and the Irish could form a happy medium and agree upon something that would benefit both parties.

They join the Conference, but get to make their own tv deal?

[HedleyLamarr]

Plus the Irish have A TON of rivals they would be abandoning. But the main ones could still play. AKA Army, USC etc.

Aren't most of their rivals in the Big 10? (Michigan, Michigan St, Penn St, Purdue)

They would have 8 conf games, and 4 non-conference games, so they could still play Navy, USC, Army, Pitt, ETC.....

I agree, but the Irish have a field-day with their own personal contract. I wonder if there is any way the Big Ten and the Irish could form a happy medium and agree upon something that would benefit both parties.

They join the Conference, but get to make their own tv deal?

Notre Dame would want a lot more concession from the Big Eleven than that.

Notre Dame, at the very least, would want:

A: Their own TV contract with NBC (or whichever station outbids NBC).

B: Keeping their bowl game money to themselves.

C: Maintaining their schedules/rivalries with nonconference foes (such as playing USC in late November, and playing the Service Academies).

D: Keeping their BCS-eligibility rules/stats in place.

Simply because of scheduling, I don't think Notre Dame will ever want a part of a conference affiliation. ND would want to play their annual rivals (USC, Michigan, Navy, Purdue, etc.), plus schedule games against teams that they've had rivalries with in the past (Boston College, Georgia Tech, etc.). A 12-game schedule with 8 conference games would severely limit their opportunities to play with big-name schools.

[rams80]

Plus the Irish have A TON of rivals they would be abandoning. But the main ones could still play. AKA Army, USC etc.

Aren't most of their rivals in the Big 10? (Michigan, Michigan St, Penn St, Purdue)

They would have 8 conf games, and 4 non-conference games, so they could still play Navy, USC, Army, Pitt, ETC.....

I agree, but the Irish have a field-day with their own personal contract. I wonder if there is any way the Big Ten and the Irish could form a happy medium and agree upon something that would benefit both parties.

They join the Conference, but get to make their own tv deal?

Notre Dame would want a lot more concession from the Big Eleven than that.

Notre Dame, at the very least, would want:

A: Their own TV contract with NBC (or whichever station outbids NBC).

B: Keeping their bowl game money to themselves.

C: Maintaining their schedules/rivalries with nonconference foes (such as playing USC in late November, and playing the Service Academies).

D: Keeping their BCS-eligibility rules/stats in place.

Simply because of scheduling, I don't think Notre Dame will ever want a part of a conference affiliation. ND would want to play their annual rivals (USC, Michigan, Navy, Purdue, etc.), plus schedule games against teams that they've had rivalries with in the past (Boston College, Georgia Tech, etc.). A 12-game schedule with 8 conference games would severely limit their opportunities to play with big-name schools.

Proposed non-Conference slate.

Army

Navy

USC (in Nov., it can be done)

random 4th team they sign contract with. (Probably not Boston College; they seemed to indicate that they were done playing them/sick of losing to them. )

The Big Ten could probably manipulate the schedule and divisions so that they play Michigan and Purdue every year.

[VitaminD]

I'm a little late to the party, but let's clarify a few things.

If we're calling LSU and Auburn academic powerhouses, why were legitimate elite universities overlooked? How about Wisconsin, Virginia and Virginia Tech, for starters. There's a difference between "good" and "elite", so let's not blur the distinction. Big Ten elites are Northwestern, Michigan and Wisconsin (maybe Ohio State); SEC has Vanderbilt and Georgia (maybe Florida, maybe Ole Miss); ACC has UNC, Duke, Wake, UVA and Georgia Tech. And that's it. While a college education is a college education, let's not compare going to Northwestern or Duke versus going to Auburn or Penn State.

And Ben - it must hurt to say it, but UNC is an elite university, made all the more so by that 20% of the student body who hails from outside the Old North State. We "smarten up" the joint, bear the brunt of the tuition bills, and ride off with their best looking womenfolk. It's really win-win.

One thing I've noticed here, is that there are some purely asinine suggestions. It's one thing to like a school, but some of these choices are off the wall! Memphis or UMass in the Big Ten? Villanova and Georgetown in the Big East (football), just because the conference pledged to throw bad money at them in piles? COME ON, PEOPLE!

A major conference adds a school, not just a team. They share research money, and collaborate academically. They want a school with similar academic standards, endowments, and a similar culture to the schools that are already members, as well as markets and strong teams with rich histories. What would the Big Ten get out of adding Memphis besides kickass ribs? How would Kentucky benefit a group of Midwestern universities?

From the other side, how would Kentucky - an icon in the SEC and basketball royalty - benefit itself from leaving the Southeast for the Midwest and joining schools that developed their own identity without UK. UK would lose all its traditional rivals and try to establish a rivalry with... Purdue? Iowa? Over what? Ditto Nebraska in the Big Ten.

The rational choices are Notre Dame (who loses huge money from being independent and would lose ties to the Catholic schools of the Northeast) and Pitt (a midwestern city in a northeastern state). Miami of Ohio is an interesting darkhorse choice, if they really wanted to make a go of it. Great school, close to Cincinnati, strong history. After that, you're just listing your favorite school.

Don't get me wrong, I love daydreams. I want nothing more than to see William & Mary go to the ACC, if for no other reason than that I could watch my school beat up on my wife's alma mater with more regularity. W&M has location and academic prestige, but their athletic program looks like Rutgers, circa 2000. There aren't 60,000 fans clamoring to expand the stadium, and the top recruits aren't turning down UVA and VT to play ball there. It would be a dumb idea.

Food for thought...

[BaltimoreFan]

But does anyone know if there's actually a practical reason for the 12 team requirement for a championship game rule? All it seems to do is encourage the larger conferences to cannibalize the smaller ones and cause an uneven distribution of quality? I don't see why any conference should need more than 10 teams. And if there must be a minimum # of teams rule, it should be 8, not 12.

I'm guessing that 12 teams makes sense for a championship game because it makes divisions. 8 teams gets 4 team divisions which is small and kinda pointless. 10 teams gets 5 team divisions. I'm guessing that an odd number would be bad because there couldn't be a point in the conference's schedule that was exclusively division play. Either way I hate the whole thing but I guess money talks. So far I really hate the ACC's expansion. We weren't a football conference, so why try to fake it. The expansion ruined basketball. We used to be able to play each team home and away. Plus Miami and Va. Tech aren't really basketball schools (although they have both recently owned Maryland) so I feel they take away from the basketball side a bit. Maybe it will grow on be but so far I really don't like it.

The only real way I'd accept 12 team conferences would be if it helped lead to a BCS playoff. It be cool if there were 10 conferences, each having a championship with the winner advancing to the playoffs. Then every team would have a chance (and no "tournament snubs" like you see in basketball). But I don't think all schools and conferences would be convinced of joining.

[hecticbro]

My dream: St. Cloud State. My alma mater. Unfortunately they are D2 in all sports and known more for drunken riots than sports.

It would be so much fun to whip on the Huskies in football and basketball every year.... No offense, but SCSU isn't really in the same academic tier as most Big Ten schools is it?

At least you've still got a decent hockey team.

[xyzzyva]

* Big Ten adds Missouri. They expand west, get the St. Louis market (which is, according to the host, more interested in the B10 than the B12) and the school already has an established rivalry with Illinois.

Those same arguments could be used to keep Mizzou in the Big XII. The conference won't want to admit defeat in the St Louis market, and even if it did, you'd end up with the same dynamic in Kansas City, but stronger, due to the long history of Kansas City as the spiritual home of the conference (no matter how much the Big XII bigwigs claim it to be different from the Big 8). At the same time, Mizzou has a [much more] established rivalry with Kansas and Nebraska. From Mizzou's perspective, the only positive difference to joining the Big Ten would be the academic/research stuff (though that reputation would be invaluable to MU, I somehow don't see it overriding the athletic concerns). And in the end, it's the schools who make these decisions, not the conferences.

[hecticbro]

I actually wouldn't mind adding Mizzou, though I don't see it happening. It just doesn't seem right for one big conference to go around snatching established programs from other conferences.