Big 10+2?
by vineyarddawg on Dec 14, 2009 5:15 PM EST
Email
PrintAccording to Dr. Saturday, the Big Ten+1 is looking to expand. I presume that the new conference would still be called the Big Ten (or, by everyone else in the world, the Big Ten+2), seeing as how the obvious moniker is taken.
What the Doc doesn't specifically say, but clearly implies, is that expansion of the Big Ten would be virtually pointless if the twelfth team is not the Notre Dame Fighting Irish. I mean, seriously, Louisville joins the Big Ten, and then Louisville wins the Big 10 Championship (or even finishes in the top 2 or 3), will that make you think better of Louisville football or will it make you think worse of Big Ten football?
Every time Michigan or Ohio State lose to Louisville, it will be no different than the times that Minnesota, Indiana, or Illinois beat the Buckeyes or the Wolverines. I understand that the Big Ten wants the money that comes with a conference title game, but you have to be careful that you're not matching up Northwestern vs. Minnesota or something weird like that regularly. No one thinks that a championship game without either Michigan or Ohio State would happen now, but that's also what everyone said about FSU and Miami when the ACC expanded... and only FSU has appeared in a title game (and even then, only once, and they were 8-4 and the laughingstock of the BCS when they won).
I understand the desire to expand on the part of the Big Ten, and would wonder why it hasn't occurred sooner. Having lived in Big Ten country for a few years in the past, though, it seems to me that The Powers That Be in the Big Ten are slower to change than others. They fear change and cling to the practices of the past by calling them "traditions..." like playing for a trophy called an "old brass spittoon" that only dates back to the 1950's. Yeah, it's old, but it ain't like Wild Bill Hickock spit any tobacco juice into it or anything. And even if he did, why would you want to lug around a jar with Wild Bill Hickock's old tobacco-juice stains in it? That's just odd.
Anyway, my point is that the Big Ten+1 should either add Notre Dame or remain the Big Ten+1. Adding an additional team just to get to 12 is a bad idea.
20 comments
|
0 recs |
Do you like this story?
Comments
Well, they could go the ACC route...
… and have a “Big” division and a “Ten+2” division. Except that it would really be a “Ten+2-6” division. Which makes my head hurt. I was told there would be no math…
In reality, though, they would have to figure out a way to not have Michigan, Ohio State, and Penn State all in the same division, so I think that would necessitate dividing the conference into North and South divisions instead of East and West.
Here you go:
Big Ten+2 “Big” Division (North):
Minnesota
Wisconsin
Michigan State
Michigan
Penn State
Notre Dame/Pitt
Big Ten+2 “Ten+2” Division (South):
Iowa
Northwestern
Illinois
Purdue
Indiana
Ohio State
How does that work out for you?
by vineyarddawg on Dec 14, 2009 8:25 PM EST up reply actions
so, OSU wins their division for the next 100 years?
"Why are we in shotgun on 3rd and 3 against the blitz?" - me
It works for me, but . . .
. . . if you track their comment threads, you’ll find that they’re as bad at math as you’d expect an eleven-team league called the “Big Ten” to be.
They keep complaining that Michigan and Ohio State have to be in the same division, which could not be more completely bass-ackwards. The SEC’s 5-1-2 eight-game conference scheduling model works; teams play the five teams from their own division, one permanent opponent from the other division, and two rotating opponents from the other division.
Obviously, Michigan and Ohio State would be permanent interdivisional opponents. If they met twice in consecutive games (once to end the regular season and once in the Big Ten+2 championship game), well, then the Wolverine faithful would get what they wanted in 2006.
Go 'Dawgs!
I think that would only work
If Pitt was the eventual selection. Notre Dame, Michigan and Penn State is too much (potential) power for one division, especially considering Wisconsin and M State have been occasional conference contenders. If Notre Dame caved, I’d say switch Penn State with Northwestern; Happy Valley is far enough away from the rest of the conference that the North/South distinction doesn’t really matter. It would make sense to put ND with the other Indiana schools, but keeping their rivalries with UM and MSU is probably more important to fans and the school. The “South” division with OSU and Penn State would probably be one of the more lopsided divisions in the country, but probably no more than the Big XII South.
Leaving insightful football commentary and analysis to other people since 2006.
It's not actually a problem
The Big 12 has done just fine with terribly unbalanced divisions. The ACC, which embraced funky division structures to try and prevent one, has a championship game no one goes to. Besides, the major reason Penn State is arguing for an extra (eastern) team and divisions is to reduce travel costs, and a straightforward geographical alignment is the only way to do that.
I mean, any possible advantages of not doing things the obvious way…
East
Penn State
Syracuse/Rutgers/Pitt (most likely Rutgers, which is, fundamentally, the same kind of school as the other Big Ten schools except Northwestern)
Ohio State
Michigan
Michigan State
Purdue
West
Indiana
Northwestern
Illinois
Wisconsin
Minnesota
Iowa
… are totally negated by confusing people, excellent odds the Indianapolis title game (and that’s the obvious location; NFL dome, not the home city of any school, and the Indiana football teams usually aren’t any good so it’s not even the home state of any likely title game participants) is not centrally located, that you’re probably doing it to keep Ohio State and Michigan in different divisions which is exactly the wrong thing to do (see why Oklahoma/Texas is a huge rivalry in the Big 12 era and Oklahoma/Nebraska is not), and that you’re just gambling that Ohio State, Michigan, and Penn State will continue to dominate the Big Ten.
Besides, aren’t my Orange already in the Big Ten? It sure seemed like we were last year.
Well, the Orange do suck like most of the Big 10...
… so they have that going for them.
(No offense.)
by vineyarddawg on Dec 15, 2009 11:19 AM EST up reply actions
A note
As Kyle pointed out, the OSU-UM rivalry could be retained by implementing the 5-1-2 conference rotation that the SEC and ACC use. Oklahoma/Nebraska used to be a big rivalry; the reason it isn’t anymore is because the BIg XII rotates all three trans-divisional games, so OU-Neb is no longer an annual affair. Using the 5-1-2 system, tOSU and UM could retain an annual rivalry while the other two conference games would rotate on a four-year cycle.
I hadn’t realized the distance factor was a motivation for Penn State; that’s a good point in favor of an east/west divide.
I still believe, though, that Penn State, tOSU and UM (or subbing ND for one of those three) in the same division is too much (traditional) “power” for a single division. Yes, programs cycle up and down at various times, but with three traditionally strong programs, the probability is higher (possibly not very high, but still higher than in other conferences) for the Nightmare Scenario, i.e., Big XII South 2008, in which all three go 11-1 with only losses to each other.
Again, gauging future strength of programs in relation to conference divisions is hard (e.g. FSU and Miami) but I think PSU, UM and tOSU are going to remain strong programs, overall, for the foreseeable future. And if Michigan fans got mad at missing the title game in ‘06, I’d hate to see what happens when an 11-1 Michigan or Ohio State team gets blocked from the conference title (and national title) in a three-way tie. It could be the end of Western civilization.
Leaving insightful football commentary and analysis to other people since 2006.
All this logistics & math is giving me a headache...
and I’m an accountant!
"Never refuse to do a kindness unless the act would work great injury to yourself, and never refuse to take a drink- under any circumstances." Mark Twain
They Could Forget ND...
Notre Dame doesn’t want any part of being in a conference in football. If I’m not mistaken, the conferences get 100% of the bowl money, then distribute it evenly to all member schools. There was an article in SI about this 15-20 years ago. I recall the drawing of a Vandy player, helmet kicked in, body bruised, and hairy belly protruding from his jersey as he sat in a recliner watching an SEC bowl team with dollar signs above his head.
If ND stays independent in football, 100% of the monney goes to South Bend. Which, might be why they have a nice, fat deal with an automatic BCS bid if they finish what, 8-4? As fishy as that 2-decade-long personal contract with NBC to show all home games, isn’t it? No recruiting advantage there…noooooo!
Personally, I think the BIG11TEN needs to coax the Steelers or somebody to turn college so they’ll have at least one team that can beat the MAC.
Actually, Notre Dame's BCS contract has been altered from that original deal.
Your assessment of the original deal the Irish had with the BCS is correct, HNKRDWN. When the BCS started in 1998, Notre Dame kept all of the $14+ million payout from a BCS Bowl in years when they received an invitation, and in years when they received no invitation, they got zilch.
Notre Dame’s contract with the BCS was renegotiated prior to the 2005 season, however. Now, the Irish get a $1.3 million payout in years they don’t go to a BCS bowl, which is similar to the average payout a BCS conference team gets that doesn’t go to a BCS bowl. In years they do get invited to a BCS bowl, they get a $4.5 million payout, which is the average payout for a conference’s second BCS team.
So, basically, Notre Dame traded higher one-time payouts for guaranteed annual money. To put in in perspective, Notre Dame will receive about the same amount of BCS money that Indiana, Vanderbilt, and Baylor will receive. Which, given the state of Irish football, seems about right to me.
The bottom line is that the BCS financial payout is no longer the strongest factor in keeping Notre Dame out of a football conference… the NBC television contract is. (Well, that and creaky alumni like Paul Hornung who seem to think that Notre Dame joining a football conference would be kind of like asking Shug Jordan to be the head coach at the University of Alabama. I also like to make analogies between Notre Dame and Alabama because Notre Dame might be the only school in the world that desperately clings to a past memory more than Alabama does to Paul Bryant’s.)
by vineyarddawg on Dec 15, 2009 7:23 AM EST up reply actions
I stand by my . . .
suggestion of Missouri. The Big Televen needs more Gary Pinkel, whether they know it yet or not.
For the record . . .
. . . Brian Cook agrees.
Get Chris Brown of Smart Football to sign off on it, too, and you have the Blogosphere Thinking-Things-Through Trifecta, which means it’s as good as done and the Panthers can start packing their bags (metaphorically, of course; they’re not actually changing locations).
Go 'Dawgs!
I agree
If it’s not Notre Dame, the only real other option is Pitt.
It seems that a lot of people are talking about Missouri, but come on… really? Missouri? I can’t say “Missouri” and “Big Ten” in the same sentence without conuring up images of what I’m sure would be an epic Insight.com Bowl.
It’s incredibly unlikely that the Notre Dame coup will be pulled off, and if the Big Ten can’t get Pitt, then they should just leave well enough alone. Adding any other school wouldn’t be beneficial to the conference, because you’d just be adding filler.
by vineyarddawg on Dec 15, 2009 6:03 PM EST up reply actions
I believe that if it's not Notre Dame, it's no one.
They’ll just wait until ND is ready. Until then, this is all pointless.
You may be right . . .
. . . and, if so, they’ve got a while to wait.
If you want to get someone bipolar to sign a deal he doesn’t want to sign, you catch him in one of his depressive phases and play on his fears. Right now, Notre Dame is in a manic phase after hiring the best-qualified coach it’s landed since Lou Holtz and has another six years on its existing deal with NBC. Even if joining the Big Ten makes economic sense for the Fighting Irish, you’ll never convince them of that at this moment.
Go 'Dawgs!
I personally see eye-to-eye with Year 2
here at Team Speed Kills. I was going to give some reasoning to my belief but Year 2 did it better than I could have, so I’ll just link his article instead.
by marktheshark on Dec 16, 2009 3:17 PM EST up reply actions
The BIG11TEN folks have been raising hell
all day about it. They don’t want Meeshigan and Ohhhhio State to be in different divisions for fear it would ruin the rivalry, i.e. NFL-likes resting starters after locking-up the home field advantage.
Plus, they don’t want them in the same division because they’re afraid an Indiana-Minnesota championship game would draw 4,500 people watching on television.
It’s the same talk we heard when the ACC expanded and they pretty much admitted they were setting it for ideal Miami-FSU title games in Tampa every year. How’d that work out?
Sounds to me like someone sinking in quicksand, but still kicking and screaming on the way down.
Thank you for the more updated info about ND’s status, vineyard!
That's why you just do it by georgraphy and let the chips fall where they may
Besides, Iowa or Wiscy or even Illinois will bring plenty of fans to the championship game even if they know they’re likely to lose. In the extremely unlikely event that Indiana makes it, it’s a short drive to Indy and locals might turn out for the game anyway. About the same goes for Northwestern. So the only real worry is Minni.
Comments For This Post Are Closed
Secondary Sidebar
User Tools
FanPosts
Community blog posts and discussion.
Certain photos copyright © 2012 by Associated Press or Getty Images. Any commercial use or distribution without the express written consent of Associated Press and Getty Images is strictly prohibited.
