The 16-team dream would be awesome. I like the idea of the Big Ten, as usual, making a groundbreaking move to be the first conference with its own playoffs as opposed to a championship game. It actually makes a ton of sense, especially when you consider the Big Ten was the reason we have conferences anyway!

You’re welcome.

http://www.rivalryesq.com/2009/11/30/1177117/the-big-tent-conference-fixing-the

(I also wrote about this on Chadnudj’s post here, http://www.rivalryesq.com/2009/12/15/1201552/big-ten-expansion-the-chadnudj-plan, with a slightly modified list of three teams I’d add to make us a mega-conference.)

As to the nuts and bolts of what you’ve said, you’re right. It’s absolutely imperative that the economics of this move make sense.

About some of your big hitters, though…I’m not sure that Maryland itself can get it done. Yes, they open up the D.C. market, but not as much as you’d expect. D.C.‘s basketball love is spoken for (Hoyas), and as to football I think it’s a safe bet that VT and Virginia both have a greater following there than the Terps can ever hope for. The others I have no quibble with.

I maintain that Pitt could be a solid add, as the Pittsburgh market is not as locked into Penn State as you might imagine. That said, they’re definitely a second tier choice, and adding them would be adding to the middle-back of the conference…not especially attractive. And you’re dead right about Rutgers.

Now, for the meat of this discussion: the mega-league. I LOVE this idea (obviously). That said, it’s a logistical nightmare, and the finances for pulling of that kind of move are going to require either Arthur Andersen like accounting or a Warren Buffet sixth sense about such things.

Still, if it’s the right mix of schools it could turn out to be an enormous boon. It’s that mix that makes the difference. That said, I’m not sure that I’m willing to lose the conference’s regional identity by tacking on a “Great Plains” division with Nebraska, Kansas, and Missouri. I think you can make an argument that Mizzou is actually a part of the Midwest, and so they pass muster…and I could stomach Nebraska if only for their hallowed tradition (and the corn connection).

When the Kansases of the world start to enter the equation, however, I balk. And I realize my reason is silly…but, when it comes down to it in an argument with a fan from the SEC, Big 12, or Pac 10, I like being able to say, "Sure, but we INVENTED football in the Midwest. The Pro Football Hall of Fame is in Canton, Ohio, and the College Football Hall of Fame is is South Bend. So, with all due respect, take your “team speed kills” and stick it. We know this game better than you do."

So, I’d stick Pitt in there instead of Kansas. That maintains the Midwest vibe, gets us a top medical school and basketball program, and helps me sleep at night. The ideal triumvirate? ND, Mizzou, and NE…but good luck seeing that proposal come to fruition.

As to the 16 team idea, it’s a cool thought…but one that will NEVER happen. Those two additional teams amplify the already cacophonous confusion large-scale expansion brings. My guiding, bottom-line question on all this is this: Who can we add while maintaining our conference identity and academic standards, and make a significant splash?

The identity piece (as I’ve already indicated) can’t be understated, and I’m sure it will be a part of the negotiations that eventually happen on this. I don’t see 5 teams out there who can meet all three of those criteria. There are four (Nebraska, Mizzou, ND, and Pitt) who I think you can argue do that. If you stretch to include Kansas, you get to five…but again, I’m just not convinced they fit the profile of the conference in a way I’d be happy with.

Am I talking out of both sides of my mouth here a little? Sure. Kansas is a better school than Nebraska, and arguably better all-around athletically. Maybe it’s repressed hatred of The Wizard of Oz from my youth, an irrational fear of Jayhawks, or my fear that we’d have to re-name ourselves “The Corn Belt Conference.” But, when Kansas enters the equation for expansion, I’m agin’ it.

The only other plausible fifth I can think of, then, is Cincy…and we know that’s a non-starter academically (sorry, Bearcats). I think 14 is as big as we can get realistically.

All that said, however, there’s going to be a LOT of ink spilled on this between now and the COP/C meeting where this all gets resolved a year to a year and a half from now. It’s fun to think about all of this, and it will keep what we baseball fans call the “Hot Stove” burning through the offseason…but there’s not much actual fire there for now.

Gotta hand it to Delaney/Paterno/Alvarez/Gee…this is a GREAT way to keep the Big Ten relevant during a period when we’re usually an afterthought.

Fascinating stuff, there. The only way it could be even more insane is if added promotion/relegation from the MAC.

The bad thing about that alignment is that it would definitely hurt some rivalries and prevent you from seeing some B10 teams for quite a while. A plan that doesn’t involve some way for Michigan and Ohio State to play every year is a non-starter, I think.

Wonder if it would make the SEC pause for just a moment when they’re taking pride in a conference rather than a team.

Also Big 14 East. From an MSU perspective: do not want. UM, OSU and PSU in division? Disgusting.

As was stated in the original post, expansion will only happen if it makes sense for the conference. Adding any old team for the sake of having a conference championship game won’t fly. It has to be profitable from all angles.

That being said, the expansion to 14 is out. Adding Nebraska, Mizzou, and Kansas will just dilute the revenue more than increase it (on a per team basis). Nebraska and Kansas don’t really bring much to the table other than history (Nebraska) and basketball (Kansas). Missouri has the media markets to make sense singularly. Kansas could make a case for itself based on being at least a decent football program lately (bowl game qualification) and a basketball powerhouse. I see nothing that Nebraska brings to the table other than history—which doesn’t generate much in the way of additional revenue.

So Missouri is probably the school we will court if we add just one team. They bring the TV markets (KC, St. Louis), academics are a bit lacking, but they are in the AAU so it should be fine, and it is in the Midwest.

However, I’ve been becoming more warm to the idea of 16 teams. In that case, Nebraska and Kansas make sense as well as Pitt and Rutgers. I realize Rutgers doesn’t own NYC, but having even a presence in NYC is better than most other options. I think the mini playoff within the conference is exactly the sort of innovation the Big Ten had in mind when it said it was thinking big and all options are on the table. The regular schedule would consist of 7 games and one flex at the end for division leaders and consolation contests for everyone else that counts as the 8th conference game. This set up is almost like having 3 conference championship games instead of 1, so it wouldn’t be as dilutive as a 14-team conference.

In either scenario, Michigan/OSU MUST be in the same division. That way, they can play the last regularly scheduled game with perhaps the division title on the line. This prevents a rematch in the conference championship game and still gives the game big meaning.

Here is what the division alignments should look like in that case (similar to the post, but swapping OSU and Northwestern as well as Rutgers instead of Maryland):

PSU, Pitt, Rutgers, Indiana
Mich, MSU, OSU, Purdue
MN, Iowa, Wisc, Nebraska
Mizzou, Illinois, NW, Kansas

This is already throwing tradition out the window, so lets not get carried away with preserving rivalries outside of these divisions.

phenomenal article fellas! That was just great…now we play the waiting game….

They may be more willing to move than what is generally assumed. I hadn’t even considered them initially, but as I think about it more and more, the Longhorns are the ONLY option other than Notre Dame.

The hook with Texas is that the Big 12 TV contract is absolutely terrible and won’t get much better because it doesn’t really have any good markets outside of Texas. Even with the unequal revenue distribution model that Texas is a beneficiary of in the Big 12, Texas is still making a whole lot less than any of the Big Ten schools in terms of conference level revenue as of today. The Big Ten plus Texas would provide conference revenue that would completely skyrocket when you consider that every cable household in the Lone Star State would receive the Big Ten Network. So, there’s a clear financial argument for Texas to move to the Big Ten.

At the same time, Texas is clearly the top academic school in the Big 12 – they are right in our wheelhouse for CIC membership. That school’s faculty and greater academic community would love joining the Big Ten as opposed to being associated with the tier 3 schools that populate the lower end of the Big 12.

Finally, there’s a CYA component here. There is a ton of consternation from Big 12 fans in general if Mizzou leaves the conference to the point where they think it might implode (i.e. it would spur Colorado to go to the Pac-10, etc.). Why? Because that awful TV contract would become even worse since Mizzou would take away the St. Louis and Kansas City markets. Those markets are middle to lower tier for a conference like the Big Ten, which has the likes of Chicago and Philadelphia, but St. Louis is the 4th largest Big 12 market and Missouri is the conference’s largest state other than Texas. Adding one or more Mountain West schools wouldn’t come close to replacing those homes. So, if all of the Big 12 members could possibly be up for grabs in that scenario, why would the Big Ten be content with going after a middle tier school? It might as well go for the biggest prize of them all since Texas may very well want to leave the Big 12 if only as a preventive measure.

On another note, it’s an interesting hypothetical about going to 14 or more teams, but realistically, there’s a point of diminishing returns for every team after the 12 that you need to stage a conference championship game (unless those additional schools consists of names like Notre Dame, Texas, Florida and USC). So, the “massive conference” scenario is likely just a scare tactic being used by the conference – I can’t imagine them going past 12 teams.

At the end of the day, I think that the usual suspects of expansion candidates (Mizzou, Syracuse, Rutgers, etc.) would leave the Big Ten playing the “What if?” game, as in “What if we had just waited for Notre Dame?” There would always be a sense of buyer’s remorse, which means that the Big Ten shouldn’t pull the trigger in that situation. Adding Texas, though, would allow the Big Ten to honestly and clearly forget about Notre Dame forever – the conference sincerely wouldn’t care what ND did with its independence because the Big Ten would’ve found the one school that arguably adds even more than the Irish. That means that the Big Ten shouldn’t even consider anyone other than Texas here.

By the way, I’m glad that you liked my “11+1=13” description and thanks for the shout out!

….are Pitt and Notre Dame, and Notre Dame has already turned down the Big 10 once before (and has its own t.v. contract), so to me that leaves Pitt. The Big 12 teams have no real incentive to come to the Big 10. As a conference, they’re comparable competitive-wise and geographically not very close to the universities in the Big 10 (with the possible exception of Missouri). That leaves the Big Eight teams, but as a conferences it is a notch below even the Big 12 (Rutgers does not have much of a winning tradition and none of the other Big Eight teams, except Pitt, really fit). Whatever we decide, it has to be done and quick. The lack of a championship game is killing us because of the several week layoff between the bowl games for the BCS bowl teams. I personally would not even mind kicking out a couple of teams from the conference and replacing them with a Pitt or even Cincinnati (or Notre Dame, if they would reconsider joining). Whatever makes the conference better and more competitive will ultimately benefit it financially.

The Big Ten saying they are not “limiting their thoughts to 12 teams” is a far cry from actually deciding to expand to behemouth size. Translation: No way they do it. The Big Ten will run the 14 and 16 team proposals up the flag pole…then run them right back down again. Not going to happen.

Second, why has no one taken a look at these endowment figures:

$16 Billion Texas
$2.25 Billion Pittsburgh
$1.03 Billion Missouri
$ 600 Million Rutgers
$ 500 Million Maryland
$ 200 Million Nebraska

This is a quick rule of thumb as to who are the heavyweights of higher learning (with a chances to go to the Big Ten.)

Translation: Obviously, the Big Ten HAS to ask ND, and obviously ND will turn them down again. Most of the remaining schools here are small potatoes for the Big Ten. The only ones that arent are Texas, Mizzou, and Pitt.

Texas and Missouri will end up being too difficult to move from the Big Ten. Pittsburgh is not, never was, and never will be an “Eastern” school.

The Big Ten will end up with Pittsburgh, and it is the best fit.

It would be a natural rival for Penn State, and solidifies the Big Ten’s hold in the Johnstown-Altoona TV market.