# Big Ten talking about being big 12 **URL:** \ **Category:** The Game Room\ **Created:** [December 16, 2009, 12:35am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/big-ten-talking-about-being-big-12/521424 "2009-12-16T00:35:15Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 17
**Author:** ![astorian](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/ad7895/32.png) [@astorian](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/astorian)\ **Post date:** [June 10, 2010, 4:35pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/big-ten-talking-about-being-big-12/521424/321 "2010-06-10T16:35:39Z")
No conference really wants Baylor or Texas Tech, and neither Texas nor Texas A &M really wants to bring them along wherever they may go. They were FORCED toinclude those schools in their move, last time out, because Texas governor Ann Richards was a Baylor alumna and the even more powerful lieutenant governor, Bob Bullock, got his undergrad degree at Texas Tech (then a law degree at Baylor). Neither Baylor nor Tech has friends in quite such high places any more, though both have clout in the state legislature and won’t hesitate to use it. They MAY still have the power to force the Longhorns and Aggies to include them in any future moves. Now, TCU and Texas Tech have done a very nice job recently with their football programs, Baylor has done a great job with its basketball program ,and Rice always has a very good baseball team. If athletics were all that mattered, each of those schools would be a worthy member of any conference. But from a purely business standpoint, no Texas school outside of Austin or College Station brings anything attractive to the table. There’s absolutely NO reason the PAC 10 or SEC would WANT Baylor, TCU, Texas Tech or Rice. They have insignificant fan bases, no national appeal, and wouldn’t add anything to TV ratings. The Longhorns and Aggies can deliver big ratings in Houston and Dallas- the other schools wouldn’t increase the viewership in those large markets appreciably. ---
**Author:** ![Sir\_T-Cups](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/ed655f/32.png) [@Sir\_T-Cups](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Sir_T-Cups)\ **Post date:** [June 10, 2010, 4:48pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/big-ten-talking-about-being-big-12/521424/322 "2010-06-10T16:48:18Z")
> [@fiddlesticks](#): > > Mizzou is one of the huge losers in the deal…apparently they bluffed when they should have called. Missouri is probably a better deal in terms of geographic fit, population numbers and existing rivalries, but it looks like Nebraska will be the sole invitee from the “West”…all further Big Ten+X expansion will be focused on the East Coast markets, either Rutgers and/or Maryland, and obviously, Notre Dame. Reading some of the insider coverage at [orangebloods.com](http://orangebloods.com), it sounds like NO ONE likes Missouri for whatever reason. Must have gotten too “uppity” in their Chase Daniel days. I’m very much against going east for any extra Big Tenners. I don’t think the Big Ten, a primarily midwest league (minus Penn State), should stretch that far. Keeping the Big Ten as is and adding Nebraska (still midwest) Mizzou (also) and then Notre Dame…you get good schools and don’t stray from the midwest. You could even add Kansas, which would bring nothing for football but a lot in basketball, and bring the total to 15. If you want an even 16 you could try to try to throw a bone to a MAC team or bring in a K-state or an Iowa state and try to get an instate rival. As much as a NY/NJ market share sounds good…who really cares about Rutgers? You at least have a fanbase in Maryland, and I guess the Terps would work out well enough, but it still strays from what make the Big Ten the Big Ten…hard nosed, cold weather, midwest football. ---
**Author:** ![BobLibDem](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/boblibdem/32/3149_2.png) [@BobLibDem](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BobLibDem)\ **Post date:** [June 10, 2010, 5:11pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/big-ten-talking-about-being-big-12/521424/323 "2010-06-10T17:11:38Z")
If they do an East-West split, it might look like this: East Penn State Ohio State Michigan Michigan State Indiana Purdue West Northwestern Illinois Wisconsin Iowa Minnesota Nebraska I like this arrangement. It keeps most of the rivalries intact. Play 5 games against your division, 4 of the 6 from the other division, and 3 non conference games. ---
**Author:** ![mkecane](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/9e8a1a/32.png) [@mkecane](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/mkecane)\ **Post date:** [June 10, 2010, 5:24pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/big-ten-talking-about-being-big-12/521424/324 "2010-06-10T17:24:13Z")
I read elsewhere (again, just fans talking) that A&M would much prefer a move to the SEC than the Pac 10. It was an A&M fan writing that, and he feels they identify with the SEC far more, and have the natural rivalry with LSU. If that happens, maybe the Pac 10 goes for 12, adding just CU and Texas, leaving the remaining 9 (assuming NU goes to the Big 10) in the Big XII. Maybe Arkansas goes to the adjusted Big XII, and Utah and TCU are added. In this scenario, all BCS conferences with changes remain (or increase to) 12 teams. Also, nevermind that New York is a pro sports town, I’ve never ever gotten the feeling that anyone would care about Rutgers unless they actually won a title (and would be forgotten shortly thereafter), with or without the Big 10. I’ve understood the desire to get Syracuse, or even UConn, but I don’t think Rutgers would ever bring anything to the table. The cable operators would laugh at the Big 10 if Delaney thought someone in Manhattan need BTN to see their Scarlet Knights. But, I may be wrong. ---
**Author:** ![pulykamell](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/pulykamell/32/3166_2.png) [@pulykamell](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/pulykamell)\ **Post date:** [June 10, 2010, 5:24pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/big-ten-talking-about-being-big-12/521424/325 "2010-06-10T17:24:24Z")
> [@Wolverine](#): > > But they are a part of the [Committee on Institutional Cooperation](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Committee_on_Institutional_Cooperation). It is the academic equivalent of Big Ten athletics]. If you want to talk about conferences academically, you need to include Chicago in the mix. I know they’re part of the CIC, but they’re not Big Ten, as that’s an athletic conference. It’s not really an apples-to-apples comparison (in my opinion) if you throw Chicago into the mix. The point is comparing schools with both great athletic _and_ academic traditions. And, like you said, there’s no need to have to claim them, anyway. I think the Pac 10 and the Big 10 are about on the same level academically, with my bias (as a Big 10 alumnus) going to the Big 10. ---
**Author:** ![fiddlesticks](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/fiddlesticks/32/18129_2.png) [@fiddlesticks](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/fiddlesticks)\ **Post date:** [June 10, 2010, 5:25pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/big-ten-talking-about-being-big-12/521424/326 "2010-06-10T17:25:19Z")
I think a Big Ten championship game that doesn’t include the possibility of a Mich/tOSU matchup is a no-go. However you split the divisions, I think that’s the biggest “must have”. ---
**Author:** ![ElvisL1ves](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/5daacb/32.png) [@ElvisL1ves](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ElvisL1ves)\ **Post date:** [June 10, 2010, 5:39pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/big-ten-talking-about-being-big-12/521424/327 "2010-06-10T17:39:08Z")
Lately _Michigan_ has been responsible for that not being a possibility. ;D ---
**Author:** ![Munch](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/munch/32/5281_2.png) [@Munch](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Munch)\ **Post date:** [June 10, 2010, 5:49pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/big-ten-talking-about-being-big-12/521424/328 "2010-06-10T17:49:05Z")
> [@fiddlesticks](#): > > I think a Big Ten championship game that doesn’t include the possibility of a Mich/tOSU matchup is a no-go. However you split the divisions, I think that’s the biggest “must have”. Why? I’d think that keeping them in the same division would make sense, and you can still arrange a “last game of the regular season” between the two. If they were in different divisions, I guess you could keep that game, but then you’d sometimes end up with two OSU/UM games in a row. ---
**Author:** ![The\_Other\_Jeffrey\_Lebowski](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/the_other_jeffrey_lebowski/32/215_2.png) [@The\_Other\_Jeffrey\_Lebowski](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/The_Other_Jeffrey_Lebowski)\ **Post date:** [June 10, 2010, 5:50pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/big-ten-talking-about-being-big-12/521424/329 "2010-06-10T17:50:56Z")
> [@mkecane](#): > > I’ve understood the desire to get Syracuse, or even UConn, but I don’t think Rutgers would ever bring anything to the table. The cable operators would laugh at the Big 10 if Delaney thought someone in Manhattan need BTN to see their Scarlet Knights. But, I may be wrong. The number of Big Ten grads living in Manhattan may very well be higher than the number of Rutgers grads living there, and I would imagine that the BTN would provide options so that a subscriber wouldn’t be locked in to only one broadcast; also, it would provide all those alums an opportunity of seeing their team play in person every couple of years without having to get on a plane (or having a long car ride). They are in the AAU and their football program is currently ranked #1 in academic performance in the FBS - [cite](http://scarletknights.com/news/release.asp?prID=9296). ---
**Author:** ![Oakminster](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/o/77aa72/32.png) [@Oakminster](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Oakminster)\ **Post date:** [June 10, 2010, 6:22pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/big-ten-talking-about-being-big-12/521424/330 "2010-06-10T18:22:57Z")
Listening to ESPN radio while driving back from lunch, and I heard speculation/rumor that Texas Tech and Virginia Tech may wind up in the SEC. That would be…interesting. If I remember right, TT has that big passing game, which isn’t really traditional SEC football. Might shake things up a bit… Also, I think the BCS is going to have to make major adjustments if it wants to remain a player. I’d like to see the “Big Four” Super Conference champions in a 4 team playoff, but if the PAC-10 makes a case for two automatic BCS bids, then the other Super Conferences would pretty much demand the same. I could see an eight team playoff comprised of all of the divisional champions from the “Big Four”, with the caveat that there could not be a rematch of the conference championship games in the first round. Something like SEC1 vs BigTen2, BigTen1 vs PAC16(2), SEC2 vs PAC16(1), etc. ---
**Author:** ![Skammer](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/skammer/32/143_2.png) [@Skammer](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Skammer)\ **Post date:** [June 10, 2010, 6:29pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/big-ten-talking-about-being-big-12/521424/331 "2010-06-10T18:29:02Z")
That kind of defeats the purpose of a conference championship game doesn’t it? If both teams have automatic bids to the BCS playoffs, why bother? ---
**Author:** ![LonghornDave](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/a87d85/32.png) [@LonghornDave](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/LonghornDave)\ **Post date:** [June 10, 2010, 6:32pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/big-ten-talking-about-being-big-12/521424/332 "2010-06-10T18:32:25Z")
> [@astorian](#): > > No conference really wants Baylor or Texas Tech, and neither Texas nor Texas A &M really wants to bring them along wherever they may go. They were FORCED toinclude those schools in their move, last time out, because Texas governor Ann Richards was a Baylor alumna and the even more powerful lieutenant governor, Bob Bullock, got his undergrad degree at Texas Tech (then a law degree at Baylor). > > Neither Baylor nor Tech has friends in quite such high places any more, though both have clout in the state legislature and won’t hesitate to use it. They MAY still have the power to force the Longhorns and Aggies to include them in any future moves. > > Now, TCU and Texas Tech have done a very nice job recently with their football programs, Baylor has done a great job with its basketball program ,and Rice always has a very good baseball team. If athletics were all that mattered, each of those schools would be a worthy member of any conference. > > But from a purely business standpoint, no Texas school outside of Austin or College Station brings anything attractive to the table. There’s absolutely NO reason the PAC 10 or SEC would WANT Baylor, TCU, Texas Tech or Rice. They have insignificant fan bases, no national appeal, and wouldn’t add anything to TV ratings. The Longhorns and Aggies can deliver big ratings in Houston and Dallas- the other schools wouldn’t increase the viewership in those large markets appreciably. Texas Tech’s fanbase is quite a bit larger than Baylor, TCU, and Rice. It’s not really fair to lump them in with those schools. ---
**Author:** ![LonghornDave](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/a87d85/32.png) [@LonghornDave](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/LonghornDave)\ **Post date:** [June 10, 2010, 6:36pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/big-ten-talking-about-being-big-12/521424/333 "2010-06-10T18:36:40Z")
> [@mkecane](#): > > I read elsewhere (again, just fans talking) that A&M would much prefer a move to the SEC than the Pac 10. It was an A&M fan writing that, and he feels they identify with the SEC far more, and have the natural rivalry with LSU. If that happens, maybe the Pac 10 goes for 12, adding just CU and Texas, leaving the remaining 9 (assuming NU goes to the Big 10) in the Big XII. Maybe Arkansas goes to the adjusted Big XII, and Utah and TCU are added. In this scenario, all BCS conferences with changes remain (or increase to) 12 teams. This makes no sense. Why in the world would Arkansas agree to go from the SEC to some shitty watered down Big 12. Further, Texas would want some schools located geographically close to it in the same conference as them. Think about all of the non-football sports. Also, why would Texas go to a conference that doesn’t include its two largest rivals in OU and A&M? They would have to play them non-conference every year. Also, A&M has more of a rivalry with Arkansas than they do with LSU. ---
**Author:** ![LonghornDave](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/a87d85/32.png) [@LonghornDave](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/LonghornDave)\ **Post date:** [June 10, 2010, 6:40pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/big-ten-talking-about-being-big-12/521424/334 "2010-06-10T18:40:12Z")
> [@MD12](#): > > I can’t see the Pac-10 taking both TT and Baylor. The Pac-10 prides itself on being an elite academic conference (perhaps bested only by the Ivy League, and some conferences made up of really small liberal arts colleges) with Stanford, UCLA, and Cal perenially among the top 30 or so universities. > > The expansion plan is already stretching those boundaries by adding OSU, OU, aTm, TT and Colorado… basically all the non-Texas schools. Plus, adding an expressly religious school would change the existing dynamic; both Pac-10 private schools (USC and Stanford) are non-denominational, unless you count the almighty dollar as a deity. Baylor is a beter academic school than OSU, OU, and probably Colorado (debateable). Also, A&M is a very good academic school and certainly better than many of the existing Pac 10 schools. ---
**Author:** ![markdash](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/ba8739/32.png) [@markdash](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/markdash)\ **Post date:** [June 10, 2010, 6:46pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/big-ten-talking-about-being-big-12/521424/335 "2010-06-10T18:46:01Z")
> [@LonghornDave](#): > > Baylor is a beter academic school than OSU, OU, and probably Colorado (debateable). Also, A&M is a very good academic school and certainly better than many of the existing Pac 10 schools. It’s becoming quite apparent I didn’t know what I was talking about when I made that post. Let me rephrase: Texas Tech sucks. ---
**Author:** ![Munch](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/munch/32/5281_2.png) [@Munch](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Munch)\ **Post date:** [June 10, 2010, 6:49pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/big-ten-talking-about-being-big-12/521424/336 "2010-06-10T18:49:24Z")
> [@Oakminster](#): > > Also, I think the BCS is going to have to make major adjustments if it wants to remain a player. I’d like to see the “Big Four” Super Conference champions in a 4 team playoff, but if the PAC-10 makes a case for two automatic BCS bids, then the other Super Conferences would pretty much demand the same. I could see an eight team playoff comprised of all of the divisional champions from the “Big Four”, with the caveat that there could not be a rematch of the conference championship games in the first round. Something like SEC1 vs BigTen2, BigTen1 vs PAC16(2), SEC2 vs PAC16(1), etc. What would the general public’s reaction be if you revised that - and made the conference championship games PART of the playoffs? It’d be a bit of a cop out, but you could then have non-SuperConference teams (the at-larges) have a play in game that’s on the same tier as the first round. SEC1 v SEC2 PAC1 v PAC2 Big Atlantic1 v Big Atlantic2 B101 v B102 At-Large1 v At-Large2 At-Large3 v At-Large4 At-Large5 v At-Large6 At-Large7 v At-Large8 Probably too many at-large teams, huh? ---
**Author:** ![Oakminster](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/o/77aa72/32.png) [@Oakminster](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Oakminster)\ **Post date:** [June 10, 2010, 6:54pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/big-ten-talking-about-being-big-12/521424/337 "2010-06-10T18:54:34Z")
> [@Skammer](#): > > That kind of defeats the purpose of a conference championship game doesn’t it? If both teams have automatic bids to the BCS playoffs, why bother? Bragging rights as undisputed conference champion, money generated by the championship game, and seeding in the hypothetical BCS Playoffs. Win your conference, and you will play the #2 school from another Super Conference in the first round, instead of another Super Conference Champion. The down side is doing something like this would pretty much eliminate all non-Super Conference schools from national championship consideration. Could counter that with a 12-team playoff tournament. Small conferences play Super Conference #2 teams in the first round, Super Conference Champs get a first round bye…also I’d arrange the seedings so that a conference championship rematch could not occur prior to the championship game, to the extent possible. ETA: \*\* Munch,\*\* I posted the above before seeing your post. Yes, I think that’s too many at large schools, but 4 at large bids to a play off tournament should be enough to give the Boise States of the college football world at least a shot at a national championship. Also your method would put the at large schools at the same tier as the Super Conference teams. Don’t think the big boys would go for that. They’re gonna want some status for playing in a Super Conference, I think. ---
**Author:** ![Skammer](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/skammer/32/143_2.png) [@Skammer](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Skammer)\ **Post date:** [June 10, 2010, 6:58pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/big-ten-talking-about-being-big-12/521424/338 "2010-06-10T18:58:16Z")
The other drawback to having both contenders in a conference championship get BCS bids, is that they may end up playing soon afterward for the National Championship. And if they had an inter-divisional game earlier in the year it could be their third meeting of the season. I don’t think anyone will like that, even if they are big name rivals. ---
**Author:** ![Oakminster](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/o/77aa72/32.png) [@Oakminster](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Oakminster)\ **Post date:** [June 10, 2010, 7:09pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/big-ten-talking-about-being-big-12/521424/339 "2010-06-10T19:09:20Z")
While I’m in Pie in the Sky mode, something I’d love to see, but will never happen even if we get the Super Conferences–all non-conference games for Super Conference teams must be against OTHER Super Conference teams. No more 70-3 blowouts of Bugtussle State. Let’s see Florida play Michigan, or Alabama play USC, or Ole Miss vs Oregon instead. But the downside to that is the sacrificial lamb teams are going to miss out on the big payday they get now, and there will never be another glorious Appalachian State over Michigan upset. ---
**Author:** ![Munch](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/munch/32/5281_2.png) [@Munch](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Munch)\ **Post date:** [June 10, 2010, 7:12pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/big-ten-talking-about-being-big-12/521424/340 "2010-06-10T19:12:00Z")
> [@Oakminster](#): > > ETA: \*\* Munch,\*\* I posted the above before seeing your post. Yes, I think that’s too many at large schools, but 4 at large bids to a play off tournament should be enough to give the Boise States of the college football world at least a shot at a national championship. Also your method would put the at large schools at the same tier as the Super Conference teams. Don’t think the big boys would go for that. They’re gonna want some status for playing in a Super Conference, I think. Yeah - you’re right. Except that getting two bids each versus just one is certainly a pretty big bone to throw them. Maybe increase the BCS conferences… More tinkering. I added the Mountain West and WAC, which are no weaker than the Big East was the last several years. Conference USA and Mid-America still aren’t there yet. That leaves 6 at-large teams, which could, I guess, go to anyone. The problem is determining if giving SEC3 a game against Utah or Kansas is so inherently unfair since SEC2 has to play SEC1 as to make it infeasible. SEC1 v SEC2 PAC1 v PAC2 Big Atlantic1 v Big Atlantic2 B101 v B102 MWC1 v WAC1 At-Large1 v At-Large2 At-Large3 v At-Large4 At-Large5 v At-Large6 [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/big-ten-talking-about-being-big-12/521424.md?page=16) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/big-ten-talking-about-being-big-12/521424.md?page=18)