Why I Officially No Longer Care Whether the Big Ten or the Pac-10 Expand
by T Kyle King on Jun 9, 2010 8:15 PM EDT
in Football
Email
PrintAs I noted previously, this posting, originally scheduled to appear shortly after midnight, was written before all Hell broke loose. Consequently, my verb tenses now appear to be wrong, but my point still stands. Due to the swiftness with which events appear to be unfolding, however, I thought it prudent to move up my posting schedule. So much for this being my planned Thursday content. . . .
I admit it: I got caught up in all of this conference expansion talk, too.
I speculated about the Mountain West. I speculated about Texas. I speculated about the Pac-10. I speculated about Texas again. I speculated about Texas some more. I speculated about Texas A&M. For crying out loud, I even speculated about Baylor!
Then I read MaconDawg’s two reports from the Peach State Pigskin Preview right after I was interviewed on the radio about the Georgia Bulldogs, and I arrived at an important realization. I had what I would call an epiphany if I had attended a school that was more interested in bragging about its academics than in providing a quality education without being all showy about it.
I don’t care. I really don’t.
I don’t care whether the Nebraska Cornhuskers play football in the Big Ten or the Big 12. I don’t care whether the Missouri Tigers play football at all. I applaud the Texas Longhorns for the way they have positioned themselves so shrewdly, but I’m not terribly concerned with which conference they choose to have write them a blank check. I have come to agree with Poseur that I don’t want the league the Longhorns bilk to be my own, but it’s pretty clear that Texas doesn’t want that, either, so I think we’re all agreed that they’ll have their thing over there, we’ll have our thing over here, and we’ll just stay out of one another’s way.
Obviously, I don’t care what the Notre Dame Fighting Irish do. They haven’t been relevant in nearly two decades, they hypocritically tout their vaunted athletic independence while claiming Big East membership when it suits them, and they deserve to be the odd man out when the music stops.
Other than hoping the Boise St. Broncos get the Mountain West Conference membership they have earned, I’m really not concerned with what the Big Ten, the Big 12, or the Pac-10 do.
Please don’t mistake that sentiment for condescension, dismissiveness, or East Coast bias; the leagues in question are significant and many of the programs in play field good teams that properly belong in the national conversation.
As a Southerner, though, I believe in practicing the form of tolerance embodied in a federal system of government featuring reserved powers; namely, indifference. If what other people do in other places does not harm me, then it does not concern me. If the Pac-10 wants to add the Colorado Buffaloes, wants to add the Big 12 South, or wants to add no one at all, well, that’s their business. Like Vito Corleone, I wish them well in their ventures, to the extent that their interests do not conflict with mine.
The Big Ten may add five, three, one, or no teams? When the Red and Black receive a bid to face one of those rumored new teams in the Outback Bowl, I’ll be interested. Until then, it’s their decision and their concern. Good luck to all involved, and we’ll see y’all in the Sunshine State on New Year’s Day. In the meantime, it’s none of my concern until someone from the Midwest shows up to claim the Chick-fil-A spicy chicken sandwich I promised him.
Until something actually happens, conference expansion is the offseason meme that cried, "Wolf!" Colorado has called a secret meeting on Tuesday so they can leave on Wednesday? Well, except they were only exploring options. Nebraska is leaving on Friday? Well, maybe. There’s a deadline of June 14, June 15, or June 17? Call me when the pick is in, not when Nebraska is on the clock.
When my wife and I decided to start a family several years ago, one of the first decisions we made was not to tell people that we were (in the popular euphemism) "trying." Among our reasons for the decision was the realization that there’s no benefit to telling people, "It is our goal to have news to report in the near future, so we are going ahead and letting you know, just so you’ll be prepared for the possibility of news, even though there is not presently any news and we are not able reliably to project the precise timetable upon which news might become available."
Quit telling me the Big Ten is trying to get pregnant. Tell me when they’re having a baby. Right now, there are twelve teams playing in the Southeastern Conference. In all likelihood, once the dust settles, those same twelve teams still will be playing in the Southeastern Conference, no more and no fewer. You say the world may end on Friday? That’s why, in these parts, we say every day should be Saturday.
This weblog happens to cover one of the aforementioned twelve teams. Until something actually happens, and probably even afterward, that’s where my focus will be.
Go ‘Dawgs!
43 comments
|
1 recs |
Do you like this story?
Comments
I'm right there with you, Kyle
I really haven’t been following this expansion tomfoolery for a variety of reasons. Mostly, though, is the fact that it really doesn’t concern UGA or the SEC. I think that any expansion over 12 teams is a bad idea, quite frankly, and I’m happy that we have pretty much been staying out of it. Granted, this will probably lead to the SEC annexing a few ACC teams down the road, but for now, I really don’t care. The SEC is doing just fine, thank you very much, and I hope that the conference remains happy with the way things are.
I agree that the SEC should watch first and act (or not) later.
As has been stated by Mike Slive, Mark Richt, Michael Adams, and many others, the SEC has a good thing going here… and if it ain’t broke, I see no need to “fix” it.
The first round of major conference expansion was driven in 1992 by the ability to create a new conference championship game, along with the additional revenue it was likely to generate. (Insert picture of ACC Championship Game and snarky comment here.)
This latest round of expansion, however, is driven by… what, exactly? Television revenue and increased geographical distribution? The SEC already has a long-term, rich TV deal, and complete national distribution with its CBS/ESPN contract. Heck, even the supposedly-regional SEC network even has affiliates in places like Chicago, Detroit, and Los Angeles.
And we haven’t even begun to address the nightmare of conference scheduling with a 16-team, two-division conference. Assuming that the standard conference schedule will remain at 8 games (a reasonable assumption, again, for the money that the additional 3-4 home games bring to big programs), you only have two options:
1) Play everyone in your division, and only one opponent from the other division, or
2) Play a more balanced schedule (most likely 6-2 or 4-3), but then everyone in your division wouldn’t necessarily play each other every year.
Option 1 would mean that you only play a team in the opposite division twice every 16 years, and option 2 would mean that it would be possible to have two undefeated teams in your own division. Both alternatives are unacceptable, in my opinion.
I suppose I could point out that I created a much more workable system a few weeks ago, but nobody listens to random bloggers on the intertubes. That brings up another, more important point, though…
A 16-team superconference has been tried in the past, and it failed miserably. Now, I’ll grant that the WAC didn’t have BCS automatic-qualifier status back then, and they used a whacked-out system (natch) to determine divisional opponents (which changed constantly), but still… a 16-team conference sounds, to me, a lot like two smaller conferences jumbled together into one big, unwieldy behemoth.
Totally agree
Why should we care what others do? All that matters is that we beat them if we face them.
They're all just jealous
of us, of our amazing football prowess, and most of all of our incredibly lucrative tv contract =)
"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
Thanks, everyone.
I had this written and ready to go, then events appeared rapidly to be overtaking it. I was afraid it was my worst-timed posting since the day Todd Grantham was hired.
The Rivalry, Esq., has a horrible name but it is an excellent blog, and events are playing out much as they suggested they should. The Big Ten has learned its lesson, as evidenced by this comment:
Add Nebraska, and hold at 12. Get a CCG going and make Nebraska feel good about joining.
The SEC and Big 10 should hold at 12 teams each and let the Pac 10 test the 16 team BCS super conference model. In a few years of this new environment Notre Dame will come to us, then we add one additional school like Rutgers to get to 14.
That is it precisely. Mike Slive sat back and waited while the Big Ten formed the Big Ten Network, which has been an unqualified success. Slive then made a show of exploring an SEC Network, with the result that ESPN backed up two truckloads of cash and began branding its coverage of the league as the “SEC Network.” The conference has national distribution, airs prominently on ESPN and CBS, and still leaves its member institutions free to negotiate their own deals with their individual broadcast rights.
Now we, and the Big Ten, are adopting the same approach on conference expansion. We know our twelve-team, two-division model works; that’s why the Big Ten has moved to copy it. The Pac-10 has volunteered to become the test case. If it succeeds, the SEC will move accordingly; if it fails—-as the history of both 16-team Division I-A conferences and conferences including Texas suggest it might—-we will have been right to stand pat. I will credit the Pac-10 with doing something daring, but the SEC didn’t have to act boldly to act shrewdly.
It will be cool to see how this works out for them, and I applaud our Midwest and West Coast brethren on their skillful gamesmanship. Around these parts, it’s the same ol’ same ol’, and that suits us just fine.
Is it football season yet?
Go 'Dawgs!
A mega conference on the West coast doesn't concern us that much.
It’s not like SEC schools and the PAC-ageddon compete for recruits on a regular basis. Heck, we don’t even dip our fingers into Texas that often. I’m with you. Let’s just wait and see if it work out west. Then we can make our move accordingly. If it were the ACC that was talking about adding Texas and such I’d be a lot more scared.
Dum spiro spero - "While I breathe, I hope"
State motto of South Carolina
by The Feathered Warrior on Jun 9, 2010 10:30 PM EDT up reply actions
Don't hold back on my account, blackertai.
There’s no need to hide behind the scare quotes. If you have an opposing viewpoint, feel free to speak your mind. Just because I politely asked you to steer clear of politics earlier doesn’t mean I’m not open to other perspectives. I’d like to think I’ve put together a pretty respectable track record in that regard, in fact.
Go 'Dawgs!
Uh
Again, I wasn’t trying to be political, just responding sarcastically to a previous post about Ken Starr. As to my point here, you’re “us” appears to say that Georgia fans in general don’t want expansion to happen. I know, from being on campus, this is not the case with a reasonable percentage of fans.
It was late; no harm, no foul.
By “us,” I didn’t mean to imply complete fan unanimity, but rather that the powers that be in the head office in Birmingham have reason to be comfortable with our current twelve-team arrangement, at least for the time being.
My bad if I keep missing your point, blackertai.
Go 'Dawgs!
Yeah, I know I have plenty of reason to care...
but looking at is squarely from a Georgia/SEC perspective, the reason that the Dawgs should care is this likely completely throws the BCS bowl picture upside down. There’s no way that the current BCS maintains its structure beginning in 2012-13 if the Pac-10 does expand.
Like it or not, that has implications for the SEC, and a Pac-16 immediately has (potentially) larger sway in any negotiations as they become both the largest football conference and the conference with a historic tie to the Rose Bowl (generally regarded as the creme de la creme of BCS bowls).
I agree its affect on recruiting would largely be limited, but the structure of whatever follows the BCS in its current format is going to be heavily influenced by such a large group of schools.
But yes, it’s not like the SEC is going to get left out in the cold in either scenario. They’ll do just fine, considering their large pile of $$ they go swimming in. But their current ‘sway’ will diminish, if only a little bit.
I don't really see that as a problem.
The Pac-[Insert Integer Here] wasn’t going to relinquish its stranglehold on the Rose Bowl, in any case; unfortunately, Georgia wasn’t going back to Pasadena for the postseason in any realistic scenario.
The Pac-16 may get a larger piece of the pie, but it won’t come at the expense of the SEC. If the Pac-16 gets an extra BCS bid, it will be because the West Coast league absorbed the defunct Big 12’s place at the table.
If the two-teams-in-the-BCS limitation is lifted to benefit the expanded Pac-16, it gives the would-be Capital One Bowl representative from the SEC a fighting shot at a BCS bowl. At worst, the Pac-16 is annexing the Big 12’s place at the table, taking three spots that the Big 12 and the Pac-10 would have split, anyway. At best, we’re losing a rule that hampered the SEC more than most leagues in most years, anyway. I fail to see the downside.
Go 'Dawgs!
Do you think that
the news coming out about the NCAA hitting USC with sanctions, including the possibility of losing bowl eligibility for 2 years will have an effect on these teams decisions? If so, do you think its a coincidence that the NCAA is finally releasing the results of their forever-long investigation now?
This will make for some interesting culture clashes, IMO
Texas & Texas A&M belong in the PAC-sixteen about as much as Oil belongs in the Gulf of Mexico. I just hope they don’t sign long term contracts. If I’m a fan of either one of those schools, strictly from a fans’ perspective, I’m not real sure…
Oh, and I, too, have quit caring. Bring on the World Cup.
"If we score, we may win. If they never score, we'll never lose."
-Erk Russell
We'll see how the Texas fans like the new set up...
once football season actually starts. A 21 hour drive from Austin to L.A. really puts a damper on your tailgating plans.
Dum spiro spero - "While I breathe, I hope"
State motto of South Carolina
by The Feathered Warrior on Jun 10, 2010 12:08 AM EDT up reply actions
I've been into doing research lately...
Here are the travel times from Austin to each of the Pac-10 schools:
University of Arizona – 14 hr
Arizona State University – 16 hr
University of California, Berkeley – 28 hr
University of Oregon – 35 hr
Oregon State University – 37 hr
Stanford University – 28 hr
University of California, Los Angeles – 22 hr
University of Southern California – 22 hr
University of Washington – 39 hr
Washington State University – 34 hr
Not too many fans are going to make those treks. When fans stop caring brands lose traction. When brands lose traction revenue goes down. I just don’t see this mega conference thing working out well for anyone. And let’s not forget that the travels budgets of all these schools are going to jump up immensely. Texas is already clearing over 25 million a year as it is. Is joining the Pac-10 really going to add to that?
Dum spiro spero - "While I breathe, I hope"
State motto of South Carolina
by The Feathered Warrior on Jun 10, 2010 12:29 AM EDT up reply actions
Well
Those are great numbers, thanks for the work. But, I must caution and point out that most likely, Texas fans won’t have to do much traveling to anywhere outside their regular sphere, aside from maybe once a year. They’ll still get Oklahoma, Ok. State, and A&M in the relative close confines of their current conference. Adding 1-2 of those long drives a year isn’t particularly bad, especially considering their non-conference slate will probably include Rice, Baylor, Houston and other ex-SWC teams.
Uh...yeah...
no one is going to drive from Austin to LA for a roadie. You’re also using the teams from the division that Texas is going to play on the road once every eight years.
To put that in perspective, UCLA and Texas would play each other only slightly more often in the Pac-16 (twice every eight years) than they have over the past 13 years (twice).
Then what's the point of being in a conference at all?
“Welcome to the neighborhood, see you in eight years”?
If that was all they wanted to accomplish, why not keep the conferences intact and agree to the joint Big 12/Pac-10 television venture that was being discussed?
Rather than “Pac-16,” maybe we should call this the “CINO”: conference in name only.
Go 'Dawgs!
This is one of the biggest drawbacks of a 16-team conference, IMO.
With the structure I mentioned above (round-robin in your division and only one team from the other division), then over the next 16 years, Texas would play Arizona State and Oregon the same number of times Georgia has.
That is not a conference, my friends… that’s just a more structured out-of-conference schedule.
by vineyarddawg on Jun 10, 2010 7:47 AM EDT up reply actions
I agree, but . . .
. . . don’t forget that the Pac-10 has been playing a nine-game conference schedule since the advent of the twelve-game regular season as a perennial feature. If they kept that, they could play all seven teams in their own division, plus two from the other division (one home, one away).
It’s still a screwy arrangement, but it may merely be absurdly screwy rather than insanely screwy.
Go 'Dawgs!
Actually, I think the set-up probably would be
Round-Robin from your division (7 teams)
Two out-of-division games
3 OOC Games
(Possible?) Championship Game
I say possible because there is some chatter that the Pac-16 wouldn’t actually look to institute a championship game, and instead just argue for two BCS bids based on the division winners. I can’t say I really like that, since then you’re really looking at basically just a loose merger of two conferences.
Also, in the proposed structure, Texas would play ASU every year, since ASU and Airzona would be shipped out of the Pac-8 division to the Big-12 South division. :)
That would result in you playing teams from the other division every four years – ie, not that significantly different from UGA’s scheduling with Western Division foes.
I was going to make this rebuttle,
but you did it for me. I realize that’s Texas’ actual game slate won’t change all that much, but as you said, “what’s the point?” I’m looking long term here. Maybe a decade or so from now people are going to start to wondering why all the teams from Texas are in something called the Pacific 16.
Conferences are great because they are regional. What’s that old saying about familiarity breeding contempt? Well contempt, in turn, also breeds money.
If they are only going to play the western division teams (btw, when was the last time anything in Texas has been referred to as “the east”) why not agree to a TV revenue sharing deal and schedule out some big name OOC games ad infinitum?
Dum spiro spero - "While I breathe, I hope"
State motto of South Carolina
by The Feathered Warrior on Jun 10, 2010 10:02 AM EDT up reply actions
Those long drives...
probably mean more stay home and watch it on TV, improving ratings and increasing cash flow. Good thing.
The whole thing...
just reminds me of a drawn out episode of Survivor…and I never really liked Survivor. Either that or, more as Kyle describes it, a results show on American Idol thats an hour long, but you only really care (if you care at all) about the last 30 seconds.
You knew something TKK
While our initial encounter may have been a bit rocky, I must say that my opinion of you has increased steadily over that last few months, and pieces like this are exactly why. You have once again, put in writing exactly what I was thinking. I too have gotten caught up in all the hoopla surrounding conference expansion, and also been equally insulted at the implication that our fine institutions down here are somehow inferior. I’ve never in my life been as aware of Florida’s USN&WR rankings as I am at this exact moment. At this point though, all of my interest, curiosity, and outrage has turned into one overriding feeling….indifference. I simply don’t care anymore. I will continue to become extremely agitated at the implication that the Big 12 would find our academics lacking (seriously?) but as a whole, I don’t care. Go where you want, and wake me when it’s over
I’m sure our southern civility will slowly degrade as the calender crawls closer to Halloween, but in the meantime I applaud your work sir. Keep it up.
Thanks for the dose of sanity, Kyle...
It has been all too easy to get caught up in the media craziness around this expansion hoo-hah, especially during this week out here on the left coast. I share our Gator visitor’s contempt for some of the insinuations regarding SEC academics which you have hammered in previous posts. But we all know the excellent worth of our educations and college experiences and CERTAINLY do not need them validated by anybody outside the Southeast. As for the Pac-10, if they want to increase their tier-3 institutions in order to obtain a new cash cow while their old one sits out the next 3 or 4 years in the penalty box, that is entirely their affair. You are right. This is a new and highly unusual model for an athletic conference. Many would say, a questionable model. We have a very successful one going here in the SEC. Let’s let the folks out here be the guinea pig and see how it works out.
Well said, Kyle
I’ll admit, I care a bit more about expansion since I live in Texas and hold a postgraduate degree from Baylor. I care about expansion from that standpoint. I also care from the SEC standpoint: should we add A&M (yes) and should we add Texas (hell no)? Other than standing at the gates to prevent Texas from joining the SEC, which they don’t want to do anyway, I’m good with whatever happens.
But other than that, I don’t care about the reshuffling. Your policy of not caring if Nebraska plays in the Big 12 or the, er, new Big 12 is a good one. As I mentioned before on TSK, I have a policy of not disagreeing with T Kyle, especially when he’s right. This is yet another one of those times he’s right.
Fake Pundit. Real Fan.
http://www.andthevalleyshook.com
Just sayin' ...
I, too, like the SEC the way it is, but …
The SEC bigshots, if they’re doing their job, are at least monitoring what’s going on, and making some contingency plans, just in case (and especially if) the new Pac16 and potential Big10+2+2or4=14 or 16 command the greater BCS leverage that seems likely to be the case at some point … particularly if the current Big10 goes to 16 teams.
In doing such monitoring, and making such contingency plans, the SEC’s bigshots would be wise to be thinking about increasing the SEC’s TV market “footprint,” which means that the most natural rivals we’d all imagine as best expansion invitees (FSU, Miami, Clemson, GaTech) would NOT be the ones that would bring in new TV “eyeballs.”
Rather, the SEC’s bigshots would be wise, at some point, perhaps in super-secret deep background chats, to explore the interest of the following schools that would bring the most TV eyeballs to an expanded SEC16:
… Maryland (9th & 27th largest TV markets in DC & Baltimore)
… UNC (24th & 26th largest TV markets in Charlotte & Raleigh-Durham)
… Missouri (given cold shoulder by Big10, but with 21st & 32nd largest TV markets in St. Louis & Kansas City)
… Cincinnati (33rd largest TV market, and an entree to the fertile recruiting grounds of Ohio)
Maryland and UNC would be natural rivals.
Missouri and Arkansas are natural rivals.
Cincinnati and Kentucky are natural rivals.
… There’s also Miami (17th largest TV market), if the Gators would allow it.
… And UConn (30th largest TV market, plus potential NYC #1 TV market carryover).
Of course, Virginia and Virginia Tech would bring in some of the DC #9 market.
Of course, if needed, NC State could be added to UNC (assuming either would ever leave the ACC) (but if the $$$$$$$$$$$$$$$ were enough, that could happen).
IF such an SEC16 were to come into being, it would likely be so that it could succeed in demanding two BCS slots for each of its two division winners (which is what the Pac16 appears to be doing, in preference to having a playoff, which its current schools and the Texas/Oklahoma/Colorado schools do not want), PLUS, perhaps, also an at-large BCS slot (as the Pac16 is also reported as seeking). (That’s likely what the Big10 would demand if and when it expands to 16 teams.)
So … you see that because of the super-conference effects on the BCS, the SEC may at some point (and it could be quite soon, given how fast these huge changes are happening this year) find that it has essentially no choice but to expand to 16 teams, and, in determining the schools to add, it will want to get the most TV market-based bucks for doing so.
SI.com article just posted about Slive's chatting with Texas A&M
http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/2010/writers/andy_staples/06/10/aggies.options/index.html#?eref=sihp
That’d be a great get for the SEC, and would help my CU Buffs get a bit freer from the Longhorns, if Utah were to replace the Aggies in the Pac16 plan….
To balance the Aggies, I’d say Virginia Tech or Maryland, for those TV eyeballs. The Hokies would seem the better SEC cultural fit, and perhaps they and UTennessee would finally take up the Bristol owner’s offer to have a MEGAgame between them in the Bristol Motor Speedway … can you say maybe 150,000+ to see a football game? I’d pay to see that!
Timing
Agreed, that if the Pac 10 goes to 16 and the Big 10 just adds one team (presumably Nebraska), the SEC should stay as they are.
The problem with all of this is timing. I think Slive is essentially of the position that if the Pac 10 and the Big 10 become “Megaconferences,” the SEC needs to go to at least 14. There is the possibility that the Big 10(4,6) or Pac 16 would have the clout to broker a deal wherein they each get two automatic BCS bids — somebody at ESPN reported this is the Pac 16’s goal. The SEC will not like that, but it’s not likely the SEC would ever be given two automatics with 12 teams and a championship game that acts as the play-in game for the BCS.
Thus, if Slive sees the two conferences going to 16, he needs to add at least two teams. Clearly he believes his best choice for the West is Texas A&M (and they seem to like the SEC as well), but I doubt A&M is willing to refuse a Pac 10 invitation with the possibility that the SEC leaves it at the dance without a date. Further, if the Big 10 makes the decision to go to 16, they likely add Nebraska and Missouri, but may head east and pick up West Virginia, Virgina Tech, and Rutgers. This would take Va Tech — the best (in my opinion) counterpart to Texas A&M for the east — off the table. Again, Va Tech might like the SEC, but do they like it enough to refuse a Big 10 invitation? Slive can sit back and watch the Pac 10 grow but he cannot sit back and watch the Big 10 go to 16.
All of that said, I think the Big 10 goes to 12, adds a championship game, the Pac 10 goes to 16 and the SEC stays as is. Big 10 fans’ biggest beef is the lack of football from like late October to January. It sucks, and they want a championship game (except at Ohio State).
This all has a lot to do with timing, which is why the chips will fall rapidly once the first one falls.
Personally, I'd prefer North Carolina as the balancer.
It will never happen because North Carolina’s administration thinks they’re slumming it academically in the current ACC. But UNC-Chapel Hill is not that far-removed from state universities like Georgia, Florida and South Carolina academically, and is certainly on par with Vandy. They would theoretically bring in the Charlotte and Raleigh/Durham TV markets, and automatically become the premier basketball school in a conference which has been trying to become a national basketball presence for a few years now, and has had some success with it. Plus Butch Davis would not have to counter the argument that players have to leave the Tarheel State to play big boy football. The travel would not be difficult and Chapel Hill is, in my opinion, one of those college towns every one should visit at least once. Again, makes too much sense to happen, but I’d be in favor of it if we went to 14 and Clemson wasn’t interested, or if we went to 16 and needed another eastern school.
Reply to windycitydawg
Mostly agree with your points, but …
BigTen would NEVER take WestVirginia (not an AAU school nor ever in a million years would be close to being an AAU school). VaTech isn’t an AAU school either, but Maryland, Virginia, Vandy, GaTech, Missouri, Syracuse, Rutgers, Kansas, and Pitt are. It will only add AAU schools (and possibly NotreDame).
Fair point on WVU
You’re probably right on this front. I disagree that AAU membership is a complete pre-requisite to getting a Big 10 invite. Most of the people I talk to (complete non-authorities on the issue) think that US News rankings are nearly as important. Rutgers — while a member of the AAU — is a tier 3 school in those rankings. Lest we forget, while the name sounds Ivy League-ish, it is really just the State University of New Jersey.
Va Tech, while not a member of AAU, ranks 71 in US News — a ranking comparable to Michigan State and Minnesota. Missouri is ranked 102 — it’d be the only triple digit Big 10 school.
I think Va Tech is a possible addition to the Big 10 despite lack of AAU membership. I’m probably incorrect on West Virginia though.
by WindyCityDawg on Jun 10, 2010 12:39 PM EDT up reply actions
You're looking at the wrong campus of Rutgers with the tier 3 thing
The main campus is this one: http://colleges.usnews.rankingsandreviews.com/best-colleges/piscataway-nj/rutgers-6964 ; #66 overall.
I was wondering...
If Big 12 teams go to the Pac-10, would they start recruiting more players from those areas than say Texas or the SEC? So, would this actually help our recruiting?
Well that certainly came out of the blue
If its true…I’m gonna take the Ben Bradlee approach and wait for another source to confirm.
Apologies to Scarlet Knights everywhere
Nevertheless, a school comparable to Va Tech.
I've got a headache now....
I tip my orange and blue cap to Kyle, as I wholeheartedly agree with him on this issue. Let the others scramble to catch the SEC…..I’d rather wait and see if the SEC needs to expand at all. I also don’t care about TV market size – Maryland in the SEC??!!?!
IF the SEC decides it needs to expand, I would like to see the conference stay true to its name and add schools that are actually located in the southeastern United States. I also would like to see schools that have a strong overall athletic program, NOT schools that excel at only 1 sport. Finally, I would like to see it add schools with a strong academic standing.
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.
