Big 16?
I suppose, now that this is seeming like a reality, we should discuss the Big 10 expansion. Nebraska appears to be headed from the Plains to the Midwest, with more to come, apparently.
I know we all vented at the concept a number of months ago, and I still hate it. Nebraska at least is sort of close to a cultural/geographic tie with Iowa and Minnesota, maybe even non-Chicago Illinois. But Rutgers, Maryland (!?!?), Syracuse, etc.? C'mon, Delaney.
Anyway, reality sets in - this is happening, the landscape of collegiate sports is completely driven by television dollars, the Big Ten Network has put the conference in position to go snapping up more programs for more dollars for its members, and so it's doing so.
Two questions for me at the moment:
1. How does this affect Minnesota? I tend to think pessimistically here.
2. What, precisely, is going on here? What's the future going to look like? Will three or four megaconferences be powerful enough to break the NCAA lock and institute a legitimate college football playoff system? That could be one positive outcome. I feel badly for non-revenue sports, though. I mean, getting from Lincoln, NE to State College, PA (or worse, College Park, MD, or Syracuse, NY) - that's no easy trip for the swim team, you know?
8 Comments:
My degree of disgust has differnt levels. Some of this stuff is just speculation at this point so let's hope it all does not go through. Here are my levels of disgust with 1 being the lowest and 5 being the highest:
1.I am not in favor of expansion. Nebraska joining the Big Ten does not really irk me. It does make sense and I have always wanted Neb and Iowa to play more often. What I don't like is the conference being split into two divisions.
2. Going to 14 teams gets me a little more peaved. A lot depends on who those teams are.
3. A full 16 teams is kind of like Brett Farve coming into QB your team. Out goes the sense of old rivalries and in comes some schools I really do not give a crap about at all.
4. The part that really bugs the piss out of me is the everything going on with the Pac 10. Expanding to 16 teams and not playing a conference championship is just stupid. Asking for two bids, one for each division is absurd. If that is the case aren't they really two conferences flying under one banner? That is what I find super stupid.
5. The idea that if 4 is true that two teams from the same conference could be playing for the national championship. The whole idea of the bowls and a national championship is to get teams to face off against teams they normally wouldn't. I wasn't in favor of it when people were talking about an imediate rematch betwen OSU and Michigan or when the chuckle heads down here were running through scenarios where Florida and Alabama should square off again.
5A. All the sports radio talk down here about how whatever Big 12team joins the Big Ten has a better chance to win a National title because they are in the easy Big Ten now.
Anyone think that Notre Dame looks like the girl that thinks she is hotter than she really is? I hope they choose to stay independent. In non-bcs appearance years, Indiana makes more than Notre Dame does from tv contracts and bowl money.
June 10, 2010 at 2:57 PM
I have sort of a torn feeling on all of this too. I love the idea of our teams playing Nebraska every few years, and I actually like the NEbraska move overall, since it's a good fit culturally...I just wish they would stop there. I think 12 is the perfect number to maintain cohesion and a sense of what the conference stands for (midwestern, academically-focused schools, etc.) The Pac 10 really has f-ed everything up, because if NEbraska was the only team to move, the Big 12 could have grabbed TCU or someone like that and overall sanity would have returned to the landscape. But no, the Pac 10 had to go and recruit Colorado, and appears to be poised to take Texas, Okla, and everyone else behind them. I guess I just don't understand the appeal of the 16-team league. Yes, the TV revenue will be higher, but who's to say it'll result in a higher per-school payout than a 12 team league? You end up dividing the pie 4 extra times, which may not result in incremental revenue.
Great analogy on ND, RTS. They may be the OK-looking girl who ends up with no one to dance with when "wonderful tonight" comes on at the end of the prom. Their arrogance is going to cost them this time. I could tolerate a 14-team Big Ten if #13 and 14 were ND and Mizzou. I just can't stomach the Rutgers/Syracuse idea.
As for how this impacts the Gophers, I don't really know. I think it means their football schedule gets tougher, but it may help the overall profile of the program in terms of attendance, recruiting, etc. There is nowhere to go but up right now...
MCA makes a great point about non-revenue sports. THe incremental TV revenue better darn well pay for the incremental travel for the non-revenue teams. How would you like to have to pay for the Volleyball team to fly from Mpls to Syracuse every year. Brutal.
June 10, 2010 at 3:56 PM
P.S. I have a Nebraska-grad buddy out here who says that the Husker Nation is stoked to join the Big Ten, which I found somewhat surprising. I guess the appeal of playing Penn State, Ohio State, Iowa, Michigan, Wisconsin (and even MN) outweighs the loss of games against Oklahoma, Texas and Colorado. The brand equity of the lower tier of the Big Ten is WAY better than that of the lower tier of the Big 12 (Indiana, Illinois, NU, MN, Purdue, etc. have a lot more cache than Baylor, Texas Tech, Okie St., K-State, etc.).
June 10, 2010 at 4:01 PM
P.P.S. Anyone else do a little fist-pump over the USC 2-year probation?!? About time...that place is as crooked as they come. I don't think the timing of Pete Carroll's move to the NFL was a coincidence.
June 10, 2010 at 4:05 PM
I don't fancy myself a great college football mind, heck I don't fancy myself much of anything outside of poet-warrior, so take this with the grain of salt with which it is served but I think it's a Win-Win-Lose-Win.
1. Win = Gophers. I went to a school where sailing was the crown jewel of our athletic department but it would seem that with the Gophers being mired in mediocrity for so long that adding Nebraska can only raise the level of all talent for all the programs. Plus, honestly, the Gophers have been so bad for so long we're lucky to be in the conference in the first place. This program has done next to nothing for 50 years with the only sign that things are changing is a (sweet) new stadium. That's it. Is it good or bad for the Big Ten, well, I wish I was arguing from the ground that RTS is standing on but I'm not. I'd like to see Nebraska play at the Bank.
2. Win = Nebraska brings sexy cache in a red sweater have fans that, say what you will, represent. Oh, and you get coaching legend, Congressman, Athletic Director, Shuttle Commander, Man-About-Town, Bull Fighter, Tom Osbourne.
3. Lose = Syracuse/Rutgers joining would blow.
I guess that's it. Oh, there was another "Win", um, the student athletes. There.
June 10, 2010 at 7:50 PM
Caveat to BG's point about the Big 12 just grabbing TCU (or Utah, BYU, etc.) to replace Nebraska: first, losing Nebraska football is a huge blow to the conference and makes the North half of it even more impotent than before. More importantly, so far as I can tell, the only reason the Big Ten started looking that direction was that Texas (UT, not the state we all know and hate so much) and the rest of the Big 12 were in a really bad marriage that looked like it was going to break up, anyway. Texas already had all the power and had moved the conference office closer to it, taking away any weight the non-Tejas schools had previously had. And they were threatening to implode the conference by leaving and/or demanding a more uneven revenue split than they already had the benefit of. So, basically, they were itching to bed the hot young chick they could attract with their new Ferrari, and the current spouse was feeling neglected. Everyone at the rest of the schools hates UT now. Without that dynamic, I don't think Nebraska starts taking the Big Ten all that seriously.
I actually think this could be bad for the Gophers. If you end up with East/West for football, and Missouri comes in, well, that would be good, I guess. Minn., Iowa, Neb., Mizzou, Wisconsin, Illinois, NU? I'll take that. But, I worry that, 20 years from now, when the next great techtonic shift occurs, if the conference gets too big and too Easternized, and breaks apart, we're the ones left out in the cold. Especially in light of jan's astute comment that, on the basis of traditional success in football and basketball, at least, the U is not exactly one of the strongest swimmers in the pool.
It would be funny if the Big East breaks up, everyone goes to 16 teams, Notre Dame doesn't join any of them, and the BCS concept falls apart, with the four 16-team conferences running their own 8 team playoff for a championship and ND not even eligible. Ha ha.
June 10, 2010 at 9:16 PM
I dislike nearly all of this, though that holds true for my general disdain for change. It took me years to get over the addition of Penn State- not that I minded Penn State joining the Big 10, I just wish they would have kicked someone out to keep it at 11...sorry but I'm looking at you with this one BG.
As has been previously said on this blog- I don't mind Nebraska joining- that would allow the necessary 6 team split add the conference championship game- which, to me, makes complete sense. But that is it.
If the Pac-10 wants to f everything up be becoming a 16 or 24 or 112 team conference, then I say go ahead and let them- don't make this reactionary decision of trying to match them be letting in Syracuse, Rutgers and Tufts (most recent rumor).
June 11, 2010 at 2:54 PM
I dislike nearly all of this, though that holds true for my general disdain for change. It took me years to get over the addition of Penn State- not that I minded Penn State joining the Big 10, I just wish they would have kicked someone out to keep it at 11...sorry but I'm looking at you with this one BG.
As has been previously said on this blog- I don't mind Nebraska joining- that would allow the necessary 6 team split add the conference championship game- which, to me, makes complete sense. But that is it.
If the Pac-10 wants to f everything up be becoming a 16 or 24 or 112 team conference, then I say go ahead and let them- don't make this reactionary decision of trying to match them be letting in Syracuse, Rutgers and Tufts (most recent rumor).
June 11, 2010 at 2:54 PM
Post a Comment
Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]
<< Home