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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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
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.
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.
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.
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