Big 10 expansion: What about.....
by Go Bevo on Dec 20, 2009 9:38 PM CST
Email
Print
On a previous day's Daily Roundup there was some discussion about the Big 10's possible expansion and then a lot of talk about how that would/could affect other conferences, primarily the Big 12. I posted these same thoughts but by then I don't think anyone was reading that day's Roundup anymore. So......
Let's assume the Big 10 invited Missouri and Missouri accepts. (Or conceivably, Iowa State, although that's highly unlikely. My angle is that a Big 12 team jumps to the Big 10.) A lot of discussion took place on which school would take Missouri's spot in the Big 12. Nobody proposed.....
.....Tulsa. Let me preface my idea of Tulsa with the fact that I don't know diddly squat about the university, other than it's in Tulsa, OK....Ha Ha. Okay, seriously.......their football program is decent but is it Big 12 worthy? (One might use that argument against Baylor or Iowa St.) How about their academics? And the other athletic programs? I was thinking their baseball is respectable....yes? no?
I don't think Arkansas is a viable candidate. TCU and Houston (athletics) are basically on the same level as Tulsa, so why not Tulsa? I know Tulsa doesn't add much "pop" in terms of television, but neither do TCU and Houston - or should I say not a "new" television market.
Tulsa could be relegated to the North division and that allows OU(sucks) and Okie Lite to remain in the South. And I highly doubt the Big 12 would make TCU or Houston take Missouri's spot in the North.
Of course all this isn't worth a bucket of horse pee if the Big 10 doesn't expand and Missouri isn't the team to join. But I just wondered what everyone else thought about the viability of Tulsa - again, I don't know anything about Tulsa.........it was just a program in the region that nobody else has brought up for discussion, so let's hear your comments........
All comments, FanPosts, and FanShots are the views of the reader-authors who create them.
93 comments
|
0 recs |
Do you like this story?
Comments
That is not that bad of an idea
Tulsa is far enough north in Oklahoma to be considered for the North. But would they be wiling not to be tied with the Criminals and Okie light?
I would vote for Nebraska to go to the Big 10
After all, every vote that was made when the Big 12 started was to do two things:
1) appease Texas
2) stick it to Nebraska.
by hskr4ever on Dec 20, 2009 10:32 PM CST reply actions
Really?
Selective memory at play here.
Oh, sorry about those partial qualifiers, I guess.
by Hopkins Horn on Dec 21, 2009 12:18 AM CST up reply actions
Yes, really
You know damn good and well that if that hadn’t received so much national publicity and if OU hadn’t been paying attention, Texas would have gotten that changed to benefit them.
by hskr4ever on Dec 21, 2009 12:58 AM CST up reply actions
wow
anything else you feel necessary to bitch about hskr? its been what 2 weeks now? christ let it go.
While most are dreaming of success, winners wake up and work hard to achieve it.
You can't deny
That Texas runs the conference. And it’s not just me saying that. It’s nearly a national perception.
by hskr4ever on Dec 21, 2009 1:00 AM CST up reply actions
And they say Texas fans whine?!
If Texas ran the conference, the rules determining who goes to the Big XII championship would have changed this year. They didn’t. It’s called jealousy; which breeds contempt.
Nebraska would really fall into irrelevance if they go to the Big 10...
Nebraska built an empire on basically taking the ‘student’ out of ‘student-athlete’. The Big 10 won’t change its rules to allow partial qualifiers. So Nebraska goes from being in a conference that allows some recruiting ties into one of the three major states for football talent into a conference that, if anything, is seeing its talent base dwindle. Ok, Nebraska might better compete in an ever weakening Big 10, but if the conference continues its decline at what point is winning the Big 10 like winning the Big East or MWC?
Missouri brings more to the table than Nebraska these days. They have a better basketball program and their football has been adequate, so on the athletics front they aren’t bad. But unlike Nebraska they bring a viewing population of some note and that is an important aspect of Big 10 expansion.
"Nebraska built an empire on basically taking the ‘student’ out of ‘student-athlete’."
Academic All-Americans (all-time)
1. Nebraska, 260; 2. Notre Dame, 204; 3. MIT, 145; 4. Penn State, 144; 5 (tie). Stanford and Augustana, 126.
Sorry, sparky, a little problem your accessment there.
“Missouri brings more to the table than Nebraska these days. But unlike Nebraska they bring a viewing population of some note and that is an important aspect of Big 10 expansion.”
We have a national following with some of the best traveling fans in college football. And let’s not forgot the embarrassment we handed Notre Dame in their stadium a few years back when there were nearly as many Husker fans as Irish fans. That happened right in the heart of Big 10 territory.
“They have a better basketball program and their football has been adequate, so on the athletics front they aren’t bad.”
Let’s see … Volleyball national champions in 1995, 2000 and 2006. … Top 10 on a yearly basis in wrestling … women’s basketball team just upset No. 5 LSU yesterday and is now 11-0. … strong golf and track and field teams. … I’d put our athletic programs up against Missery’s anytime.
by hskr4ever on Dec 21, 2009 9:16 AM CST up reply actions
No complaints about your first points
And I personally love Volleyball (took Intermediate volleyball taught by Amanda Gammage at UT twice just for the fun of it), but volleyball brings in little to no money even if you are Penn State and you are winning national championships year after year.
Women’s basketball might break even, but I doubt that as well.
I like to talk up all of our sports too, but when it comes down to it, only the major men’s sports (football, basketball and baseball) count for anything when the conferences are looking at a program.
Actually, as I understand it...
…the Big 10 currently has no conference rule restricting the recruitment and participation of partial qualifiers. However, they have stricter standards than the NCAA regarding how many hours an athlete must complete once enrolled.
Of course, if any of the conference members ever started recruiting partial qualifiers extensively, I believe that would change rather quickly.
We'll carry the banner high!
Bring On The Cats
If there's a void left by a departing Mizzou or Nebraska . . .
. . . and Texas wanted to stick it out in the Big XII and try to keep the conference as strong as possible, I would pursue . . .
Utah.
To eliminate other possibilities which have been raised:
(1) Arkansas strikes me as far-fetched. Even if the grumblings on the intertubes are correct and the Hogs aren’t entirely happy in the SEC, why leave that extra TV $ on the table to move to the Big XII (especially since they almost certainly would NOT be in the same division as Texas or OU)?
(2) TCU and Houston add nothing to the television footprint, and neither draws too terribly well at home. Look at the unprecedented level of success it too for TCU to start getting over 30K per game in the seats.
(3) Tulsa is a bit outside the box, but I’d put them at the same level as a Houston or TCU.
Utah, though, does play in a decent-sized market. Adding Utah would allow the Big XII to expand its footprint beyond its current borders, but in a logical way. It also gives a more natural rival for Colorado within the conference.
And Utah isn’t that bad competitively, either. Since the time the Big XII began, Utah, coming out of a mid-major, has accomplished something no Big XII school has: finish in the top two in both football and hoops.
I just don’t know if Utah would want to leave BYU behind — or if legislative forces in Utah would allow it to happen.
BYU a better option
Utah certainly has good athletics (although basketball has been quite a bit weaker than BYU in recent years), but if you are looking for viewership, selling tickets, academics, etc, BYU is a better choice. Utah has a much more regional fanbase, whereas BYU not only gives you as much a fanbase within the state at Utah does, but a much much larger national fanbase. BYU traveled very well to the game against OU in Dallas – and last year for the TCU game they had over 15,000 fans in Forth Worth.
Academics are stellar as well – business and accounting programs are top 10 in the country, with many highly rated graduate programs.
The basketball team has been in the NCAA tourney many times, although still hasn’t gotten past the first round for something like 15 years. However, they also excel in other sports. Overall, I just think they would be a better match than Utah.
Interesting thoughts . . .
. . . but, realistically, could one move without the other?
by Hopkins Horn on Dec 21, 2009 1:23 AM CST up reply actions
I think you're right.
Utah and BYU won’t separate.
Also, just my first impression, but Mizzou for Tulsa seems like a bad trade for the Big XII. We should really try to hang onto Mizzou if that’s all we’re getting back. No offense to the Golden Hurricanes (N.B., Oklahoma is landlocked).
By the way
I can’t find this online — does anyone know why Tulsa’s mascot is a Golden Hurricane? Is that like a dust devil?
Did you wiki it?
Straight from wikipedia: he name “Golden Tornadoes” was chosen by TU football coach H.M. Archer (1922-24) based on new gold and black uniforms (rather than the previous orange and black) and a remark made during practice of the team “roaring through opponents” (during a season when TU went undefeated, including wins over Texas A&M and the University of Arkansas). However, it was quickly discovered that the same name had been chosen in 1917 by Georgia Tech. Archer then substituted the term “hurricane” for “tornado” and a team vote prior to leaving for the game against Texas A&M confirmed the official nickname as “Golden Hurricane.”
I asked a friend that went to TU and she said that is the official story.
by OminousPolaris on Dec 21, 2009 4:33 AM CST up reply actions
Probably Not
I’ve heard talk before that BYU would go Big 12 and Utah Pac-10, and they would just do like the USC/ND thing and schedule a game near the end of the year every season. Realistically though, I think either both stay in MWC, or both move to the same conference. Big 12 north would be pretty damn strong if you replace any 2 teams with BYU and Utah.
Personally though, I would hate to lose Nebraska. It would be fantastic to have something like Iowa St and Mizzou leave, replaced by high caliber programs like BYU and Utah. Don’t forget, Utah has been to 2 BCS bowl games and have had a Heisman winner. BYU has a national championship and a Heisman winner. Good pedigree. Certainly a better option than Tulsa.
Also, just to throw another name out there . . .
. . . how about Memphis as a possible replacement team?
Yeah, I know it’s not appealing, but that’s the problem — there really aren’t that many realistic and appealing replacement teams out there.
If any Big XII school goes...
It should be Texas. It improves our situation across the board both athletically and academically. We would never hear about SOS in football, especially if we kept OU and aTm on the schedule as non-con. Basketball would be about the same, maybe better and we wouldn’t have to worry about Kansas all the time. Baseball is a lock every year and I am sure we could talk the new conference to play most conference games at Disch. Our division in the new conference would probably be Iowa, Wisconsin, Illnois, Minnesota and Indiana/Northwestern which would leave OSU, PSU and Michigan in the other division providing for a marquee matchip most years in a title game in football. And academically it is a huge step up because instead of being the dominant university academically, we would be tied for fifth behind Michigan, Illnois, Northwestern, Wisconsin, and tied with Penn State (according to the new US News rankings). In the Big XII, aTm is always close to being Tier One and sometimes jumps up to that status but the rest are Tier Two, and even Tier Three schools. It would probably push the university more to better the already superb education they provide and make our degrees look better, for those of us that graduated from Texas. Would I push hard for a jump? No. Would I mind it? Not at all. But if they are going to poach a Big XII school, why not the best one?
I said it in another thread
But Texas going to the Big 10 would greatly diminish our long term strength. Part of the reason Texas is so powerful in so many areas is because of football. The reason our football program is so powerful is due to recruiting Texas kids, a hotbed for D1 talent. If we played all of our conference games a minimum of 1200 miles away (that’s a guess, I didn’t research), the Texas ties would decline rapidly because the Texas kids wouldn’t really get to see Texas play nearly as much. Being able to maintain a regional footprint allows Texas to keep a stranglehold on the states recruiting. Just because we would play in the midwest doesn’t mean that our recruiting there would provide enough of a lift to balance out the loss of the Texas recruiting.
Agreed
Zero peripheral exposure in Texas would diminish program strength within Texas.
by burntorangehorn on Dec 21, 2009 10:01 AM CST up reply actions
Would not hurt regional recruiting or long term strength
Texas kids have been going to Texas, Michigan, Ohio State, Florida, Oregon State, and everywhere else forever and yet Texas still maintains its strength. We would still be the regional power, just in a different conference and we could still beat up the other regional “powers” every year and it won’t hurt us in conference. The Big XII TV contract stinks compared to the Big Ten, who generates more money and has its own network. Plus, the Big Ten Network is provided on normal, and not premium, cable in their home state markets (or so I am told) so there is exposure. Also, in my opinion, it helps recruiting because now you not only have the selling points of the Red River game and aTM but you get to say “Hey son, you will also get to play in The Big House and The Horseshoe and Happy Valley” instead of “We also play in Stillwater, OK, Waco, TX, and Aimes, IA!” (And no hate on the first two, I’m from Waco and getting the PhD from Okie Lite). Those games will still be on national TV and probably the national games of the week for ABC and ESPN much like the SECs games on CBS which means more primetime games for us. So if anything, the kids will get to see us more, not less, which will help us recruit more, not less. To say that, in this TV and internet age, kids aren’t aware of other programs outside of the Big XII is folly. It is not the 1960s anymore. Kids are much more informed now just because it surrounds them daily when they watch ESPN, check out rivals.com, and follow twitter pages.
by OminousPolaris on Dec 21, 2009 1:02 PM CST up reply actions
I'm glad you believe this
And in theory it sounds nice. But it doesn’t work that way in the real world of recruiting. The fact is, only a couple of elite Texas products leave the state each year. Usually, Texas either doesn’t offer these kids or never had a shot with them in the first place (coaches kid, local connections, etc). A large part of Texas success with Texas products is the visibility Texas has. I can’t imagine how the big 10 network, in the state of Texas, would be stronger than what is currently available for Texas football. Could the Big XII have a better network presence? Sure. But that doesn’t mean the Big 10 would benefit Texas in any way, shape, or form.
Your theory is just as cute
And you only read half of what I typed. The real world of recruiting is that it is ever changing (TV/internet) and to say that being on national TV more often than the 2PM game on FSSW would not help us is mind boggling. If we are on national TV more and have a larger presence, we are not considered a regional power but a national power and recruiting stays the same (excellent) or gets better. No way it gets worse and maybe we keep those kids that you say we never had chance at and leave the state. The visibility of Texas increases not decreases with a national audience which would include the state of Texas. And you don’t think Texas recruits want to play in “glamor” away stadiums like Michigan and Ohio State on ABCs Saturday night primetime game over Floyd Casey and the Temple of Boone at 11AM on a regional network? Please. The point I was making with the Big Ten Network was an example of the increase in revenue and better TV contracts, plus it would help Texas because games like Michigan State-Minnesota are relegated to the network and leaves our games open for prime spots. We also never hear SOS crap, especially with OU and aTM still on the schedule. And let’s not forget the academic side of this which would help Texas athletes, students, and alum in every way, shape, and form possible.
by OminousPolaris on Dec 21, 2009 6:31 PM CST up reply actions
Regardless of reason
I don’t see this situation ever happening so this debate is rather pointless, in my opinion. You have some good points, but my belief is that they look good on paper. Either way, it won’t happen so I’ll just agree to disagree and leave it at that.
It's
a) The Big 12 TV contract might be smaller than the Big 10 one, but you’d be stuck with an equal slice of the big pie, instead of monopolizing an over-large chunk of the small one due to revenue sharing. Probably not as much to gain as you’d think.
b) not gonner happen, cos you’re too far for the Big 10 to want you
Why would the Big Ten care?
They only have to go to Texas once every other year in most sports (less in others). It is Texas that would be screwed by all of the travel.
I would love to see Tulsa
From what I can remember, they have very high academic standards. Maybe take SMU now that June has the program on the rise.
Get off your knees Greg, you're blowin' the game.
I had thought about Tulsa and Tulane
But I ruled both of them out of contention for two different reasons:
Tulsa does not offer increased market. The conference needs some market if it’s going to make up for the loss of Mizzou or even ISU, so even if the sports and academics were in place, I’m not sure it’d be worth it.
Tulane offers market (New Orleans), but isn’t likely to be able to sustain much of a program in any sport.
That’s why I didn’t really consider either of those schools anything but emergency candidates. That is, if the Big 12 weren’t able to find a quality candidate like Ark or Utah, it could possibly turn to a program like Tulane or Tulsa, or maybe New Mexico or TCU.
by burntorangehorn on Dec 21, 2009 8:29 AM CST reply actions
Why not Go back and really expand Big 12
Let’s go back and expand big 12 to Big 16 and bring our SWC buddies in Texas, Baylor, Texas Tech, Texas A & M plus TCU, SMU, Houston, Rice in the South.
Oklahoma, Oklahoma State joining the north, Nebraska, Missouri, Colorado, Kansas, Kansas State and Iowa State.
"When you pass, three things can happen and two are bad", DKR, why he chose to run instead of pass.
Missouri goes...
We pick up TCU in the south and send OK lite to the North… I wish we could flip Oklahoma upside down and send OU to the north… it would be awesome to beat them twice every year!
I mentioned it last week...
but Chip Brown keeps saying that yes, Mizzou seems to be the team that will join the Big 10 and that Arkansas is by far the front-runner to replace them in the Big 12………at least according to his sources.
I wouldn’t count out TCU though.
Inside Scoop
Hi, about a week ago I attended a party where I met an individual who’s on the Aggie Foundation board. He told me the following from what he’s heard in meetings with their athletic department:
1. The Big 10 wanted Notre Dame, but they were turned down again. So, they’re looking at Missouri or Iowa State, since they need a team in the West. Missouri provides them with a large televised market, but Iowa State ranks higher academically, and that’s a big plus to the Big 10. Iowa State has been given permission by the Big 12 to pursue offers. If Iowa State accepts an offer from the Big 10 there’s going to be a domino effect.
2. Arkansas has approached the Big 12 about leaving the SEC. If Iowa State goes to the Big 10, we’re taking Arkansas. Also, Jerry Jones has been pushing this with his clout and money, since he was an Arkansas grad and would love to see them play in his Cowboy stadium for a Big 12 championship. Arkansas would like to be in the North division too since they feel there’s a better chance now for them to dominate with the current weakness in the North (which is most likely turning however with teams like Nebraska).
3. When Arkansas leaves, the SEC will take back Clemson, since it used to be in the SEC and they can easily pull in thousands of fans for their games.
4. The PAC-10 has approached Utah and BYU to join their conference to bring them up to 12 teams as well.
5. All of this is to prepare for an eventual playoff system.
thanks........very good stuff.
should be interesting to see this all unfold.
It will be nice to see the Big 10 and Pac 10 cave in and finally get a conference title game.
I've been wondering about the playoff ramifications
It seems to me that a re-alignment that results in uniformity in conference size would make for a pretty darn good playoff bracket. I’m not all that pro-playoff, to be honest, but I had been thinking that there might be some early warning about the direction of championship determination that had caused conferences to look at movement toward twelve. If that truly were the case, I would expect that this Big Ten move to be done in an attempt to jump ahead and claim their additional team while the getting’s a little easier.
by burntorangehorn on Dec 21, 2009 2:49 PM CST up reply actions
I don't buy the Pac 10 going after BYU
It doesn’t fit their mold of public universities (USC excepted) and isn’t a major research university. I think people in this thread are greatly overlooking the academic angle. If the Pac 10 were to expand, why would they take two SLC schools? I’d think they’d try to get two markets out of it. SLC would be a good one, the second one, I’m not sure… Boise and Las Vegas make geographic sense. I doubt Vegas is a big college town, though, and UNLV may not be up to Pac 10 academic standards. For that matter, Boise state may not be, either. I doubt Reno/Sparks/Truckee Meadows is big enough to warrant Nevada’s invitation (academics being another question entirely).
If the Pac 10 is intent on expanding, I could see them make a play for Colorado.
BYU isn't a major research university?
When did they downsize?
by burntorangehorn on Dec 21, 2009 3:10 PM CST up reply actions
I thought this was the consensus?
Am I incorrect? I was of this impression. Notre Dame isn’t, for example.
BYU: it's a research university, and has 34,000 students
I think it’s also one of the two or three largest private universities in the country. It offers doctoral degrees in a couple dozen fields.
I’m not sure what official governance dictates as the definition of “major research university,” but I would think BYU qualifies.
BTW, USC isn’t the only private school in the Pac-10. Stanford.
by burntorangehorn on Dec 21, 2009 3:28 PM CST up reply actions
The Carnegie Foundation has BYU
as “high research activity” (for example, like UTEP, which was a random pull), whereas Mizzou (and Berkeley) are both “very high research activity.” I think the latter are what’s deemed “Research I”, but I could be wrong. In any event, only 96 universities have “very high” status. I’d consider those the “major” ones. Not to say all the Pac 10 universities are (Oregon isn’t, for example, but Utah is), but I figure they’d like to go that way if at all possible.
New Mexico is Research I, too… hmmm, maybe that instead of Nevada?
NM could be a Big 12 candidate, IMO
But probably not Pac-10. I would think BYU’s excellent academic reputation, very large fanbase, nation-wide appeal, good alumni base, and good athletics program would be a bigger factor than CM’s research rating. It’s not like they’d be perceived as inviting in USF or anything.
by burntorangehorn on Dec 21, 2009 3:58 PM CST up reply actions
Notre Dame is actually
Look at the Carnegie list under “University of Notre Dame,” not “Notre Dame.”
Iowa State ranks higher academically
Really?!?
by Hopkins Horn on Dec 21, 2009 3:33 PM CST up reply actions
I wasn't sure I agreed either
But I wasn’t going to nit-pick on something so subjective. The majority of college rankings are ridiculously flawed, and only have any significance because of the absence of anything better.
by burntorangehorn on Dec 21, 2009 3:35 PM CST up reply actions
According to U.S. News and World Reports...
…the answer is yet.
Commence argument over the flaws of academic rankings.
We'll carry the banner high!
Bring On The Cats
I couldn't possibly argue academic prestige without my powdered wig
I find an air of haughtiness and austerity critical to such discussions.
by burntorangehorn on Dec 21, 2009 10:50 PM CST up reply actions
I'm really impressed...
…that I had a typo in my comment that was discussing academic prestige. Brilliant.
We'll carry the banner high!
Bring On The Cats
by TB on Dec 22, 2009 7:36 AM CST up reply actions
I figured the "yet" was just a lead in...
You were drawing us all in only to swoop in later with the answer.
I'm impressed
by the typo itself. yes —> yet?
Are you using one of those non-qwerty kwyboards? [sic]
Unfortunately, no
I’m starting to wonder if I was drunk when I typed that.
We'll carry the banner high!
Bring On The Cats
by TB on Dec 23, 2009 3:17 PM CST up reply actions
Assuming the Aggie winds up being 100% right . . .
. . . two questions I have:
(1) Who would the ACC then pick up to replace Clemson? Syracuse? Pitt?
(2) If this is all a fore-runner to a playoff system, what happens to the Big East? There aren’t four available schools (or five, if the ACC did another raid to replace a Clemson) which could be added to the conference while maintaining with any semblance of a straight face that the conference is anywhere near as strong as the other BCS conferences. And I’m not sure the other conferences will tolerate forever the relatively easy paths to conference championships Big East teams have. Would it finally be relegated to second-tier status?
by Hopkins Horn on Dec 21, 2009 3:44 PM CST up reply actions
I think the Big East could survive as a big time conference
See my hypothetical radical realignment below. They get a few stragglers, but if in my scenario we swap Navy to the Big East and Temple to the ACC, that’d go a long way, too.
I assumed the the "hypothetical radical realignment" . . .
. . . was just one man dreaming. In terms of what is realistically possible — no team currently in the Big 10 or ACC winds up in the Big East — what teams could the Big East add to get to 12 if that became a requirement after all of the other conferences get to 12?
It’s some combination of Memphis, ECU, UCF, Army, Navy, Temple (part II) and any team your heart desires from the MAC.
It just doesn’t pass the laugh test.
by Hopkins Horn on Dec 21, 2009 3:52 PM CST up reply actions
Yeah, it's pretty much contingent on Notre Dame
Plus BC realizing they’re a bad fit for their non-revenue sports in the ACC. Navy is a plus. The rest, I agree they’re garbage.
That's not quite a far-fetched as it sounds
Well, OK, it is far-fetched. But there was a possible move of JHU to DI four or five years ago.
JHU is DI in lacrosse and DIII in all other sports. The NCAA generally requires schools which compete at DI in one sport to compete at DI at all sports. For historical reasons, though, a handful of schools are allowed exemptions. (Colorado College for hockey and Middlebury for skiing, I think, are examples.)
The NCAA, though, came damn close to eliminating the historical exemption. No one within the JHU community could ever figure out what was driving the legislation or what schools were being harmed by retaining the exemption.
Eventually, the legislation failed. Had it passed, though, JHU made it clear that it would have moved up to DI in all sports. To what conference? Who knows. Probably one of the two-bit Mid-Atlantic DI conferences like the Colonial. Or maybe even the Ivy. And maybe the football team would have been killed in the process.
But not the Big East. The school missed that train 30 or 35 years ago. I am convinced that had JHU made a move a la Georgetown in the 1970s or so to make itself into a basketball power, the school could have done so very easily, given all of the hometown talent in Baltimore in a city without a major DI program. (Lots of minor programs, but no major.)
by Hopkins Horn on Dec 21, 2009 4:15 PM CST up reply actions
What about Maryland
College park is in Baltimore’s backyard. I’m no east coaster, but to me that seems like a hometown team.
This is a serious question, btw. Maybe the mindset on the high population-density BosWash corridor is really different.
Actually . . .
. . . College Park is a DC suburb. It’s inside the Beltway and just a few miles from the DC border. If you happened to see the excellent “30 at 30” on ESPN about the death of Len Bias, you saw first-hand UM’s geographic proximity to DC.
I don’t think UM has ever developed a monopoly on Baltimore high school hoops players (like Carmelo Anthony, for example), and there would have been room for another power in the region had things evolved differently a generation before.
And having lived in Baltimore as an undergrad and in DC many years professionally, I think it’s safe to say that UM comes nowhere close to capturing the hearts and minds of its home-state residents like so many other flagship state universities do.
And for what it’s worth, College Park is easily the dumpiest college town for a flagship state university I’ve visited — and I’ve visited a lot.
by Hopkins Horn on Dec 21, 2009 4:37 PM CST up reply actions
Texas not leaving Big XII
Guys, get serious. Texas is not leaving the Big XII for the Big 10. They RAN the SWC and they now RUN the Big XII!
If the Big 10 wants to expand, they should set their sights on Notre Dame. If Notre Dame won’t join, then the Big 10 needs to drop the expansion idea. Anything less would be a letdown. But, I do believe the Iowa St. would be a natural addition because Iowa is already there. And vice versa if Iowa wants to join the Big XII.
If the Big XII wants to expand or restructure, they should push hard for Arkansas to join. Then, redivide the conference into 2 divisions: “Traditional Big Eight” and “Traditional Southwest Conference”. I think the worst thing that happened in the creation of the Big XII was in ditching the annual best rivalry of the Big Eight: OU vs. Nebraska. The Big Eight division needs to be NU, OU, OSU, KU, KSU, and Missouri. The SWC division should be Texas, A&M, TTech, BU, Arkansas, & then allocate Colorado to the SWC. If Iowa St. doesn’t join the Big 10, then keep ’em in the Big Eight. Then, offer up a SWC membership to one of the following package deals: BYU & Utah, or Arizona & ASU.
In a perfect world, the Big 12 Big Eight would be NU, OU, OSU, KU, KSU, Missouri, Iowa St., and Iowa and the Big 12 Southwest would be UT, TTech, A&M, BU, Colorado, Arkansas, LSU, and maybe Houston. Call it the Super Sweet XVI or something like that.
For conference affiliations, it’s gotta have natural geographics to it and also natural pairings & rivalries. TCU is hot right now in football but their natural rival is SMU, which isn’t close to consideration yet. Missouri should stay outta the Big 10 because their main rivals are KU & the Big Eight schools.
Redividing the Big XII
Redividing the divisions would be good for all sports, not just football. Some of those not strong in football have terrific traditions in basketball (KU, Missouri, & Baylor (women)) and other sports.
The only bad thing about that would be to leave OU unchecked in the North division. They would kill all those patsies without Texas beating ‘em in football half the time. Vice versa, they probably would be thinking the same thing in the South. Either way, they’ve got to split these 2 up into different divisions or else stop having divisions altogether. They’re the 2 that need to be meeting in the Big XII championship game pretty much every year.
What I'd like to see vs. what I think will happen
I’d like to see the Big 10 invite the University of Toronto. Makes sense geographically, and it’s AAU. Disregard the fact that their football stadium seats about 5000 people.
I think Missouri is the most likely candidate to get the invite, with Rutgers being the runner up. Iowa State isn’t going to happen. They’re the unloved child in a low-population state. Missouri is AAU, with an OK academic ranking that will scream up if they join the Big 10/CIC. Don’t forget that the Missouri Journalism school could then work more closely with Northwestern’s building some kind of J-School juggernaut programs at both (maybe they’ll produce real journalists!). Mizzou brings St. Louis entirely to the Big 10, and a big chunk of KC.
At this point the Big 12 could either contract (bye bye Baylor) or add a program. If Arkansas is to come in, I’d like to see them go to the South and shift OU to the North so they could revive the OU-Nubs rivalry. This would go a long way toward balancing the divisions (at least in the here and now). If UT-OU want to maintain the Shootout, they could play a non-con game every year (HAHAHAHAHA, good one, me!). Really, though, that would be all UT (or OU) would ever need to have their SOS be a non-starter argument against their inclusion in the title game.
At the same time, I think adding Mizzou to the Big 10 goes a long way to strengthen their football conference (really!), and maybe, juuuuuuuuuuuuust maybe, the media can get over treating the SEC as a play-in conference for the BCSMNC game.
In amorphous’s world, here’s the domino-effect radical realignment that takes place so all the Big 6 go to 12 (which is a precursor for my 8 team playoff where the Big 6 conferences each send their champion – which is decided from a title game between two divisional winners – plus two champs selected from the MWC, WAC, MAC, Sun Belt, CUSA, and whatever crapola conference I might be forgetting; plus, this makes Notre Dame join a conference and stop pretending to be so special). Note that this is me giving up my Toronto dream scenario, and practically ignores basketball, because I care way more about football, and also requires some promotions which are a bit of a stretch:
Mizzou: Big 12 → Big 10 west (divide this as you will), Big 10 now with 12, Big 12 now with 11
Arkansas: SEC South → Big 12, Big 12 now with 12, SEC with 11
OU: Big 12 South → Big 12 North
Baylor: Big 12 → CUSA
Houston: CUSA → Big 12 South (no net change to Big 12, CUSA)
Clemson: ACC → SEC, SEC now has 12, ACC with 11
South Florida: Big East → ACC, Big East now 7, ACC with 12
Boston College: ACC → Big East, ACC has 11, Big East with 8
Navy: → ACC, ACC has 12
Notre Dame: → Big East (like every other sport they have)
Army: → Big East
Temple: MAC → Big East
Buffalo: → MAC → Big East (It’s AAU, did you know that?), Big East now has 12, MAC has 11
I also think this makes the Big East a pretty doggone good conference (by which I mean, they now have Notre Dame).
Now the MAC brings in like Western Kentucky and like James Madison, I don’t know, who cares, either way the Sun Belt and MAC get to 12.
CUSA either keeps its 12 or loses some to the MAC/Sun Belt or promotes some nobody, either way they end up with 12. No one cares.
So that’s the Big 12, Big 10, SEC, ACC, MAC, and Sun Belt taken care of.
The sparsely populated west is a bit tougher. Let’s start with a bad fit:
LA Tech: WAC → CUSA
UTEP: CUSA → WAC
there, that’s better.
Now for the rest, the Pac 10 needs two more. They take Utah and Nevada (one from the MWC, one from the WAC). Now the WAC has only 8 and the MWC only 8 also. So we need 8 more schools. Well, the Big Sky Conference has 9, so let’s shred that and there’s one sad program that has to stay I-AA. Let’s say sorry Eastern Washington (smallest enrollment in the conference), and say “hello!” to the Portland States and Northern Arizonas of the world. Whatever that works out to for both the WAC and the MWC.
A man can dream, can he not?
I say we make a push to try to keep Missouri. They are good for TVs.
Let the Big 10 have Iowas State. Am I wrong in thinking that they don’t help bring in any big market in football or basketball? I’m all for going after BYU or Utah to try to bring in those TVs. That should then make it more attractive for Mizzou to stick around. If we have to bring both BYU and Utah at the same time, send Kstate packing.
This list was posted by Propper on BC. I’ve assumed Mizzou stays and we pick up Utah markets:
Big 12 Top 50 Television Markets (w Utah/BYU)
5. DFW
10. Houston
16. Denver
21. St. Louis
31. Salt Lake City
32. KC
37. SA
45. OKC
48. Austin
Better than what we’ve got currently. Really, I’d like to at Arizona, but I don’t think that is going to happen.
Can someone provide the Cliff Note's version . . .
. . . of why Arkansas is theoretically unhappy with the SEC and would leave for a conference with lesser revenue potential? Beyond Jerry Jones’ influence — unless is Jones is symbolic of a typical influential Arkansas alum who grew up with the SWC and has fond memories thereof . . .
I wish someone would explain why we want Arkansas. Who cares if they are (MAYBE) and upgrade as far as competition/respect go? It is about money, and the biggest market Arkansas brings is #56 Little Rock.
I kind of agree . . .
Even if Arkansas were to be available, I kind of think Utah would still be a better school to target.
by Hopkins Horn on Dec 21, 2009 4:16 PM CST up reply actions
I think Utah spreads an already large conference out way too much.
I mean, those of us from the North division feel like Colorado is way out there (it is), and the South divisioners think Texas Tech is way out there in the middle of barren wasteland (it is). This completely eliminates the possibility of road trips. And for that reason, I don’t like it.
Teams in the ACC manage distances like that all the time (I thinkt the Pac 10 has a few similar distances). Its only 1 hours for the North teams that they would play the most. That is definitely in line with all other conferences. The teams from the South would only travel there once every 4 years. No big deal. Much more money.
Just noticed you're a Mizzou fan
So how do you personally feel about a potential move to the Big 10, and how do you think most of your fellow alums/fans view it?
by Hopkins Horn on Dec 21, 2009 4:39 PM CST up reply actions
Personally, I like it
The revenue sharing is even, which will never happen in the Big 12 (which, btw, really Texas does control; I’m stating this as a Texas fan,* also), which is big. We’ve gotten screwed the last three years in bowl selection. We’ll lose out on the history of the Big 8, but the Big 12 “claims none of the Big 8’s history as it’s own.” (It’s totes new, guise!) Now, I’m a Big 12 homer, through and through. I’ll make no apologies for it, but I feel like we’ve gotten the short end of the stick. This is primarily recent developments that are exacerbating longer-existing wounds, though, and is only relevant to athletics.
More than this, I think the (hypothetical) move to the Big 10/CIC does A LOT to improve the academic reputation of the school. That makes my undergrad degree more valuable (not that that matters now). You know the faculty are salivating at the idea to get into that company, and all the grant money/conference invitations/prestige that will become easier to get should this happen. This is what I think the sports fan angle overlooks. Professors are concerned with getting their grant money, which leads to prestige, which leads to more grant money, and so on and so forth, and the administration can then recruit the academic superstars, faculty and grad student (Woo!). The CIC gives them all that plus, it’s actually great for the students (this is in large part working on the assumption that professors who are better at doing research may be marginally better at teaching HAHAHA). Lots of assumptions here, I know, and it’s basis is on whether or not academic reputation actually matters in real world applications to the students, alumni, and potential students.
I think reaction towards this is mixed among fans. Some people are discounting the academic side entirely. I think it would take a formal invite and rejection/acceptance to see what really they’re thinking. I think an invite that was accepted would not be met with major problems, nor do I think a noninvite/rejection would be a problem. I’m sure we’d get a lot of HURRDURR SLAP IN THE FACE kind of crap if there was no invite at this point. That’s one thing I’ll tell you about Missouri (and St. Louis in particular), there’s a severe inferiority complex. No one wants us. The midwest thinks we’re southern yokels, southerners think we’re no good yanks, St. Louis still wants to be one of the nation’s crown jewel cities like it was 100 years ago (don’t youtube St. Louisan reactions to Brewster McCracken’s campaign ad, it’s just embarrassing for me), etc.
*Not a bandwaggoner, graduated from both, call off the dogs please.
That’s one thing I’ll tell you about Missouri (and St. Louis in particular), there’s a severe inferiority complex. No one wants us.
I suspect you’re about to find out how much the Big XII wants you (which is A LOT). But I somehow I also believe the posting above, “Inside Scoop”, regarding ISU being given permission to leave.
Mizzou is always a solid team, in or near the top 25 every year. In the BCS’s world of perception, that makes the Big XII look stronger. I’m less convinced that conference rankings contribute to a school’s overall esteem in the world of academia, though. I would bet the profs and funding agencies don’t really look at conference rankings as much as individual performance when it comes time to dole out the grant money.
Where would the Big Ten Championship Game be?
If Texas went, I mean. The Big 12 CG is not permanently at Jerry World now, but at least it’s within reasonable driving distance of anyone in the conference, whether in KC, OKC, or DFW.
If UT were in the Big Ten+2, it’d probably be in one or more out of Detroit, Minneapolis, or possibly Milwaukee.
by burntorangehorn on Dec 22, 2009 5:22 PM CST reply actions
Is there a football stadium in Milwaukee?
I think Indianapolis and Chicago would be likely candidates.
We'll carry the banner high!
Bring On The Cats
by TB on Dec 23, 2009 7:33 AM CST up reply actions
There's an indoor baseball stadium, a fairly new one I think
And I believe it’s supposed to be convertible for football purposes.
Chicago would almost make sense, but the weather would be a big issue. They would probably want to hold it in a dome, if possible.
by burntorangehorn on Dec 23, 2009 8:08 AM CST up reply actions
Have you been to the new dome?
I haven’t seen it, but I had a great time at the old RCA dome. They let us kind of have the run of the place, no pun intended, when it was the annual hosting site of the NCAA indoor track championships. Great complex, despite the age and wear.
by burntorangehorn on Dec 23, 2009 12:08 PM CST up reply actions
I've driven past it a couple of times . . .
. . . and it looks like a giant, giant brick barn. I wasn’t too impressed architecturally.
But once you stay in downtown Indy, you understand why the city is perfect for events like this. Both the old and new domes are walking distance from a surprisingly vibrant downtown, with plenty to do (bars, restaurants, hotels, shopping, etc.)
by Hopkins Horn on Dec 23, 2009 3:39 PM CST up reply actions
Yep
JHU undergrad, UT Law. But I grew up the biggest Horns fan imaginable, despite the lack of any family ties to the school. I cried at the the 84 Cotton Bowl. I still have the game-worn Jeff Leiding #60 jersey from that season which I received as a gift. (I didn’t know how cool it was at the time to possess a #60 jersey.) Almost got in a fight with hicks from Arkansas at the end of the 1990 Elite Eight game. Laughed my way through the 1991 Cotton Bowl.
by Hopkins Horn on Dec 23, 2009 4:07 PM CST up reply actions
I mostly asked because I have a lot of JHU connections here now
One of my best friends was dragging out his PhD there for two extra years before he finally landed his dream job. Apparently tenure-track professorships in his particular field of literary analysis are a bit hard to find, and he wanted one at a top lit school, which I guess meant UGA.
My own connection is in the future, I hope. Since I’m cutting short on law school, my company has offered me a slot in one of their external training programs. There are several very attractive programs, including an MBA at JHU, although I admit that I’m not really as into the idea of an MBA (I’m a policy guy). The other option is CMAP at Georgetown, which, despite being much more in line with my current career and having much better earning potential, would probably suffer from the same time constraints as law school has.
by burntorangehorn on Dec 23, 2009 4:37 PM CST up reply actions
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.
