But I’m not sure that adding those three teams would “go a long way toward repairing the damage done to the national image of the Big Ten as a powder puff league.”

While Notre Dame certainly adds a storied history, the Big Ten is already flush with tradition. Don’t forget, we’re tied with the SEC for the most national championships, and it’s not just Ohio State and Michigan that account for that total. The problem is that a national audience doesn’t see Minnesota as a faded juggernaut that dominated in the 1940s. They see Minnesota as a mediocre, and largely unexciting brand that went 1-11 two seasons ago, and got run over by Kansas in last year’s Insight bowl.

My point is that tradition won’t save the Big Ten. Winning bowl games will save the Big Ten.

Notre Dame has lost 21 games in two years. That’s the worst pair of seasons in school history. Although I have no doubt that the Irish will eventually get back to their 1980s form, from a short-term reputation standpoint, they’re not going to gain us much ground. Having said that, I’m still wholly in favor of getting the Irish in the conference.

Pitt and Cincinnati, on the other hand, are tougher sells. Sure they’re both good this year — and Cincinnati has three consecutive 10-win seasons, but I can’t get this image of the stands at Heinz Field out of my head:

Makes Ryan Field look like Williams-Brice Stadium, doesn’t it?

My question for you is what happens when Cincinnati loses Brian Kelly and both schools go back to being perennial 6/7 win teams? Do either have the fan-base to command attention, or will the Big Ten race start feeling like the ACC’s?

Also, do you think Pitt would be willing to leave the Big East in basketball?

Just to clear up any confusion, the post of mine that you link is over two years old and was focused on Jim Delany’s discussions concerning adding to the Big Ten footprint. Accordingly, I didn’t discuss schools inside the Big Ten footprint such as Pitt and Cincinnati. I appreciate the link, but wanted to offer the caveat concerning anything that might seem outdated or omitted.

First of all, listing the addition of Notre Dame as part of an obvious solution dooms it from the beginning, because there is absolutely no interest on ND’s part. The university has explored and rejected the option a couple of times in the last decade, and alumni are almost unanimously opposed. Like it or not, ND values its football independence and things are not likely to change.

Second, I don’t think you have offered any explanation for why this expansion would solve the Big Ten’s problems. ND would be a great fit, but a) it’s not going to happen; and b) ND’s bowl record over the last 15 years is worse than the Big Ten’s. Pitt is a good-enough school academically and athletically, but isn’t terribly high-profile in either spot, and Penn State already gives the Big Ten a strong presence in Pittsburgh and the rest of Pennsylvania. If I were making a list of Big East schools and the viability of their candidacy, I don’t think it’s an exaggeration to say that Cincinnati would be the last school on my list, even behind South Florida. The Bearcats’ football program is a flash in the pan, and the basketball program, commuter-school profile,

I don’t think the Big Ten’s reputation as a conference comprised of good schools is something do be dismissed lightly, nor is it much of an impediment to football success. Certainly, on average, the Big Ten’s public universities are better than those of any other conference, but on the other hand, the vast majority of schools with strong athletic programs are, like 10 of 11 Big Ten schools, are large flagship or co-flagship public universities. This isn’t the Ivy League, and no one could mistake it as such. Still, the CIC (the academic committee that includes all Big Ten schools plus former member U. of Chicago) remains important to Big Ten schools, and adding a school like Cincinnati, which would drag down the conference’s academic rep without enhancing it one bit athletically seems like an odd “solution.”

Again, I think you need to expand on why this is a good idea. Other than allowing the BT to add a championship game, what are the positives? Is there any way that adding three schools would add enough revenue to equal the per-school revenue that schools get now? Maybe, if ND is in the mix, but ND isn’t going to be in the mix. I see lots of negatives, lots of watering down. Again, ND would be a coup, but a conference that includes royalty like OSU, Michigan, and Penn State, not to mention solid tier two programs like Wisconsin and Iowa, is going to have its football fortunates saved by Pitt and Cinci-freaking-nati?

I totally agree that Notre Dame is completely unrealistic at this point given the economics. But where is the point where they decide it is better to be affiliated with a conference? Sure they always play a pretty good schedule, but it loses some meaning when they can’t say where they are relative to some of their peers. For instance, it means something to say they finished 3rd in the Big 10 than to say they finished 8-4 (for instance). If Weiss is gone after this year, it is going to be another rebuilding period for Notre Dame that may or may not payoff a few years from now.

Also, I would argue the point that Notre Dame is sure to regain national prominence. I think times are different. Sure they have the history, but so do the Gophers. The point is that I don’t think Notre Dame is as special as it used to be. There are many other schools that are more prestigious these days as far as football goes.

One final point, is Notre Dame even up to snuff academically? I ask because I don’t really see Notre Dame as part of the prestigious affiliations such as the Association of American Universities, et al. Perhaps they are part of other cohorts or have reasons for not joining them, but I still don’t see their graduate school rankings being all that impressive—or at least not as impressive as most Big 10 schools as Notre Dame’s “brand” would have you believe.

Here’s a link to an Orlando Sentinel blog post from a few months ago. It shows that ND certainly is among the haves in college football (#14 overall in revenue), but ranks comfortably behind OSU, Michigan, Penn State and Wisconsin and roughly on par with Iowa and MSU. Of course, ND does just fine from a revenue perspective, and no one is saying otherwise, but the notion that the TV contract remains a strong financial incentive for remaining independent is no longer true. It’s basically a revenue-neutral decision.

NOTE: I posted this originally as a response to Chadnudj’s post on this topic, which you can access here: http://www.rivalryesq.com/2009/12/15/1201552/big-ten-expansion-the-chadnudj-plan. This topic is clearly shooting to the top of discussion, so I thought it would be good to repost my thoughts on the mega-league. -LEM

The belief that Mizzou is probably the best bet for addition is I think the right one (and I know will make a certain Law Buckeye and the future Mrs. Law Buckeye very happy indeed). Their strong academics, decent football program, solid basketball program, Midwest profile, and location in a new market check too many boxes to ignore.

The argument is out there that Mizzou has too close a tie to the old Big 8 to consider leaving, but that’s hooey. If the economics of the situation call for a change, it’ll happen.

As to the Gold Domers, I think they make sense from a tradition and national standing standpoint, but that’s about it. No new markets (despite their national profile). That, and they’re too high on their own smug to consider stooping to playing nicely with others (South Park reference…the click through is totally worth it).

As to the "mega expansion" I discussed here earlier…I’ve read the commentary, and I understand the points made. While I still think it makes some football sense for expansion to include WVU, Pitt, ND, and Mizzou (a slight change from my earlier version), the academic side of the equation excludes WVU. If you could somehow add 3 of those 4, though (so, Pitt, ND, and Mizzou), you’d really have something.

All are AAU capable (if not members already). All have solid-to-strong athletic departments. They’re geographically coherent.

If we’re going to expand, let’s go big. This would make us the Cadillac Conference (hey, there’s an idea…GM, any bailout money left for a sponsorship there?), the envy of all of college football. Lots of politics there, obviously, but it would be truly exciting to see us grow in that way.

I also think most of the rivalries could be preserved in a 14 team conference (simply a larger version of what you’ve laid about above). Too much? Probably. But fun to think about