T1B

What’s the difference between 14 and 16? 2. The same number of balls you expect to see on an attractive chick.

This is Pitt’s beat writer for the Post-Gazette. Great rant.

PITT IS GOING TO THE BIG TEN!!!!!!
STOP PLEASE......
Enough of this silliness about Pitt making an announcement about going to the Big Ten. Enough already, please.
I know, some guy you met who is a former Pitt athlete said he heard that Pitt had told some athletes it is headed to the Big Ten.....Or better yet, some guy you know who is a coach whose players are being recruited by Pitt told you that Jamie Dixon told him that they are headed to the Big Ten.......Or I know, some booster who would really know, he said he talked to someone close to the chancellor who said it is going to be announced.....Or I know, you were at Chicago Airport and saw Steve Pederson and the Chancellor talking with Tim Curley and Jim Delany.....Or I know, all the athletes have been told already but instructed not to talk about it. ....
PLEASE, JUST STOP!!!!
I've heard it all and it never ceases to amaze me how gullible people are, of course, I shouldn't be surprised because the gullibility of people is clear just about every election day.....
Generally I try to avoid rumor mill stuff but this one -- that Pitt has formally applied for membership to the Big Ten and will be making some sort of an announcement about it soon -- has taken on a life of its own and has reached ridiculous levels. Thanks to the internet, where any wacko can start a web-site and then start a rumor, this kind of nonsense grows and grows until it gets out of control or dies completely. Of course, when it dies, those who started the rumors are never held accountable and move on to the next rumors.
But here is what I can tell you:
I've spoken with countless people at Pitt about this situation -- and mostly because I am getting bombarded with e-mails, voicemails, text messages and every other form of communication about it not because I believe any of it -- over the last few days and this is the message I've gotten loud and clear ---
There is no announcement planned (the phrases "total fabrication" and "absolutely 100 percent false" and "there is absolutely nothing to these rumors, nothing at all" have been used on more than one occassion) because there is nothing to this whole 'Pitt to the Big Ten' stuff. At least not right now and not in the near future. And to take it one step further, there have been no formal discussions (and I've been told there haven't even been any informal discussions between Pitt and the Big Ten, in other words, there have been no discussions at all) between Pitt and the Big Ten and all of these rumors are just that.
In other words, it isn't going to happen any time soon, if ever, because the process hasn't even begun. And it may never begin, though at some point it could.
It is especially true considering this little, um, fact (yes, I know, facts sort of take the wind out of the sails of good internet rumors but facts are generally supposed to be a part of the story)----- The Big Ten hasn't even finished studying the idea of expansion, nor has the conference even decided whether or not it is going to expand.
Once the Big Ten decides whether or not it will expand, it then has to decide who it is going to invite and while it seems clear that Pitt will be on that short list, there are other schools who will be considered as well. So this process isn't anywhere close to being started.
And while we're at it -- let's not forget that for Pitt to go to the Big Ten it must first get out of the Big East -- and thanks to Virginia Tech, Miami and Boston College, leaving the Big East is now a very expensive and complex proposition. It is not nearly as easy to pull out of the Big East as it was prior to the ACC raid.
Look, the people at Pitt are not going to issue some sort of statement because they obviously don't want to burn bridges with the Big Ten on the off chance that some day down the road there is something to actually discuss. A move to that conference is certainly something that the powers at Pitt would consider if that option is offered to them but as of right now, it hasn't been and it won't be any time soon.
Pitt may or may not some day end up in the Big Ten (I have my doubts but it hasn't been ruled completely out), but this much is clear - it is not happening this week and it is not close to happening soon because there is still a lot that has to happen to make it even feasible - starting with the two sides actually getting together to talk about it.
I can't make it any clearer than that.
Posted: Paul Zeise | with 19 comment(s)
Filed under: pitt panthers, Panthers, Pitt, Big Ten

RACK Goobs...

If Big10 expands, they should take 3

2 divisions, title game(which is what they want)


If they take 1 university, and it's Pitt, Big10 failed. They bring a lot less than the teams being mentioned.

"a lot" less, huh? In what respects?

MgoBlue-LightSpecial wrote:"a lot" less, huh? In what respects?

Athletically, it's not close. Pitt is a 2 pump chump. Basketball is very good, football above average and rest of teams are garbage. in the 90's in directors cup(which takes in al lsports)

Then you have Mu and NU, who are in the top36. Both have strong wrasslin programs(big10 is a beast),very good baseball programs(would probably dominate big10 baseball), MU has good womens soccer, gymnastics, etc(yikes, some sports i wouldnt count).

Academically, not sure about Nebraska, but MU has some top notch programs. J-school is the best, either top or one of top vet schools. Good ag program, etc. They have tightened the academics, used to be, if you were an in stater, you could go. Now its a lot tougher to get in, especially with economy, and kids around the country, staying home for home state discount.
Also, is one of only six public universities nationwide with medicine, veterinary medicine, engineering, agriculture and law on a single campus.

Notre Dame is the Homerun.

But a 3some of MU,NU, and ? would be as close to ND as they could get.

Plus

I would rather road trip to Madison,Cbus,Ann Arbor,Happy Valley, etc.

It doesn't get much worse than:

Manhattan, Kansas
Lawrence, kansas
Ames, Iowa
Lubbock, tejas
Waco, tejas
etc

Athletically, it's not close. Pitt is a 2 pump chump. Basketball is very good, football above average and rest of teams are garbage.

I'm a fan, not a spreadsheeter. I couldn't give two shites if Pitt sucks at fencing and water polo.

As for academics...Pitt is a top research university - it's exactly what the Big Ten is looking for in that area.

The other point is who is the Big 10 pulling in with that move? There is already a team from PA and that state basically doesn't give a fuck about the Big 10. Would Pitt help that? Possibly. The Big 10 network is already available in PA and they still don't care. Pitt doesn't bring in any new markets. The Big 10 would be losing money on the deal. Financially, it would make much more sense to expand westward and tap into Big 12 country or skip Pitt and try to get Syracuse.

I don't mind Syracuse, but they don't bring much to the table that Pitt can't already provide...probably less, imo. At least with Pitt you've got the natural rivalry there with Pitt/PSU. That game would promote itself. The NY market would not be be some virgin territory what with PSU already having a pipeline to that area and to the east in general, and the fact the BTN is currently available there. Plus I'd venture to guess when you look at both football and basketball, Pitt brings in a larger overall viewer base than does Syracuse. Recruiting wise, it wouldn't hurt to get a tighter strangle hold on the hotbed that is PA. Cuse, on the other hand, recruits Duke point guards to play qb. Yikes.

I don't mind the idea of expanding west for the newer market, but when you look at the totality, Pitt seems to offer more pros than "fill in the blank" Big 12 school.

Adelpiero wrote:Plus

I would rather road trip to Madison,Cbus,Ann Arbor,Happy Valley, etc.

It doesn't get much worse than:

Manhattan, Kansas
Lawrence, kansas
Ames, Iowa
Lubbock, tejas
Waco, tejas
etc

What's wrong with Ames? That's a great college town and they've got a few very good local restaurants. The Hilton Coliseum atmosphere is as good as it gets, even when ISU is not that good. Jack Trice leaves a lot to be desired in terms of game atmosphere unless they're playing Iowa or Nebraska but the tailgating is outstanding. Ames is a fun town if you're looking for a college roadie.

TheJON wrote:

Adelpiero wrote:Plus

I would rather road trip to Madison,Cbus,Ann Arbor,Happy Valley, etc.

It doesn't get much worse than:

Manhattan, Kansas
Lawrence, kansas
Ames, Iowa
Lubbock, tejas
Waco, tejas
etc

What's wrong with Ames? That's a great college town and they've got a few very good local restaurants. The Hilton Coliseum atmosphere is as good as it gets, even when ISU is not that good. Jack Trice leaves a lot to be desired in terms of game atmosphere unless they're playing Iowa or Nebraska but the tailgating is outstanding. Ames is a fun town if you're looking for a college roadie.

I have to agree and if anyone has complaints about the "sights" or "talent" on campus in Cloumbia, Ames, Lawerence, or Boulder they have never been to any obviously.

As some have mentioned, Pitt is a bit of a head-scratcher, unless the Big Ten is contemplating further expansion. And expansion beyond 12 teams is problematic for a football conference, from a scheduling standpoint.

From the Big Ten's standpoint, Pitt seems to bring little to the table other than solid academics, a solid basketball program, a natural rival for Penn State (thereby placating JoePa), and a warm body necessary for the CCG.

Even from Pitt's standpoint, I see little to be gained from the Big Ten other than from a spreadsheet standpoint. Yes, Pitt-Penn State needs to be reinstated immediately, but that should happen without regard to conference alignment. Plenty of other in-state rivalries already get played every year even though the schools in question are members of different conferences. In that regard, Florida-Florida State, Georgia-Georgia Tech, South Carolina-Clemson, Virginia-Virginia Tech (formerly), and even Iowa-Iowa State (NOJ orgasm in 5, 4, 3, 2, . . .) come quickly to mind. Given the difficulties that have been inherent in continuing that rivalry, one cannot automatically assume that the Backyard Brawl will continue should Pitt join the Big Ten. As for the rest of the conference, is playing the likes of Minnesota, Iowa and Wisconsin that much more appealing to Pitt than playing Syracuse, Rutgers and Cincinnati? And in basketball, I think it has to be a net loss for Pitt. Playing Penn State doesn't add anything to their program (see PSUFAN's Woe is me thread in the CBB forum). The Big Ten does have some nice programs, and I suppose Pitt has potential to develop rivalries with the likes of Ohio State, Indiana, Purdue, Illinois and Michigan State -- 15-20 years down the road, or so. As for right now, my guess is that playing the likes of Syracuse, UConn, West Virginia, Georgetown and Villanova has to be more exciting for Pitt.

Iowa-Iowa State (NOJ orgasm in 5, 4, 3, 2, . . .)

5 seconds? Fuck you! I ain't no premature ejaculator!!!

As for the rest of the conference, is playing the likes of Minnesota, Iowa and Wisconsin that much more appealing to Pitt than playing Syracuse, Rutgers and Cincinnati?

No disrespect, Terry, but quite simply............YES. It is more appealing.

Hmm.........

Play a bunch of mid-major caliber teams in the Big East or go face Ohio State, Penn State, Iowa, Michigan, Wisconsin and other programs that are occasionally decent.

Gee, that's a toughie!!!

Oh, and CASH IN on the Big-10's revenue sharing and best bowl alignments. Sure, in hoops the Big East is traditionally tougher than the Big-10 but their revenues would not decrease in hoops because of the switch. And let's face it, football is the top revenue sport for every school except maybe Dook. But they're all just a bunch of dorks and losers anyways so who gives a shit about them?

Preach on, Bro JON.

TheJON wrote:

As for the rest of the conference, is playing the likes of Minnesota, Iowa and Wisconsin that much more appealing to Pitt than playing Syracuse, Rutgers and Cincinnati?

No disrespect, Terry, but quite simply............YES. It is more appealing.

Hmm.........

Play a bunch of mid-major caliber teams in the Big East or go face Ohio State, Penn State, Iowa, Michigan, Wisconsin and other programs that are occasionally decent.

Gee, that's a toughie!!!

You'll note that the three schools I mentioned are the farthest away from Pitt, geographically speaking. So as to those three schools, I see no reason why any of them would be more attractive to Pitt than Syracuse, Rutgers or Cincinnati.

As for tOSU and Michigan, consider that the gain of those teams is balanced out by the potential loss of West Virginia (before you downplay that possibility, consider that Pitt did lose Penn State when Penn State moved to the Big Ten) and, although it's not a conference rivalry, Notre Dame (unless they get a scheduling concession from the Big Ten, they'll lose ND, at least as an annual game. Even if they can stay in ND's rotation, they'll do it at the expense of Purdue and/or Michigan State, not exactly the best way to win friends in your new conference.) Remember, we're talking about the perspective of Pitt fan, not the perspective of Iowa fan. From Pitt fan's perspective, I have to believe that gaining Michigan and tOSU in exchange for West Virginia and ND is a wash at best, particularly when there's a strong likelihood that they won't be playing Michigan every year.

Oh, and CASH IN on the Big-10's revenue sharing and best bowl alignments. Sure, in hoops the Big East is traditionally tougher than the Big-10 but their revenues would not decrease in hoops because of the switch. And let's face it, football is the top revenue sport for every school except maybe Dook. But they're all just a bunch of dorks and losers anyways so who gives a shit about them?

As has been mentioned elsewhere, Pitt may be an exception to that rule. It's largely a commuter school and the football team plays in an off-campus venue. They've quietly put together a consistent Top 25-level hoops program, while football usually is meh to slightly above that. Tony Dorsett and Dan Marino finished playing a long time ago.

Killian wrote:The other point is who is the Big 10 pulling in with that move? There is already a team from PA and that state basically doesn't give a fuck about the Big 10. Would Pitt help that? Possibly. The Big 10 network is already available in PA and they still don't care. Pitt doesn't bring in any new markets. The Big 10 would be losing money on the deal. Financially, it would make much more sense to expand westward and tap into Big 12 country or skip Pitt and try to get Syracuse.

As for Syracuse, I don't see them bringing all that much to the table either. In football, New York State is a NFL market first and foremost. And even among college fans, both Penn State and ND have as many, if not more, fans in New York than Syracuse. Like Pennsylvania, most of New York already has the BTN available and most people don't care.

Hoops would be a different story. Most of upstate NY would be solidly in the Big Ten camp if Syracuse ever made the switch. Downstate would have divided loyalties, though, as long as St. John's remained in the Big East. But basketball concerns are not the impetus for this expansion, of course.

When you're talking about Syracuse, the wildcard in any discussion is Jim Boeheim, who has quasi-athletic director type power at least within the institution. If Boeheim doesn't like the move, Syracuse won't go. Remember, a few years back Boeheim balked at the idea of moving to the ACC, and Syracuse ultimately stayed put.

All of that being said, I see you working. From ND's perspective, either Syracuse or westward expansion from the Big XII works better than Pitt moving.

Terry in Crapchester wrote:the perspective of Iowa fan

SunCoastSooner wrote: I have to agree and if anyone has complaints about the "sights" or "talent" on campus in Cloumbia, Ames, Lawerence, or Boulder they have never been to any obviously.

Larry Eustachy approves.

Goober, stay in the hoops board. You can't run Iowa smack over here as we not only own Wisconsin but you are our inferiors. I know you guys strive to be Iowa, that's why you take the coaches we don't want, but you never will be. In short, eat a dick.

Jon wrote:we not only own Wisconsin but you are our inferiors.

Not quite clear yet on that whole 'not only/but' relationship thingy and how it's supposed to work, huh?

Uh oh, T1B English lesson........M Club to remind everyone how I claim to have great grammar/spelling in 3.....2.....1...

TheJON wrote:Goober, stay in the hoops board. You can't run Iowa smack over here as we not only own Wisconsin but you are our inferiors. I know you guys strive to be Iowa, that's why you take the coaches we don't want, but you never will be. In short, eat a dick.

Nobody in their right mind would strive to be Iowa. We take coaches you don’t want? You mean like Bielema?

http://www.theoneboard.com/board/viewto ... ma#p538171

i actually think Pitt is a good choice, were it to happen. Pitt is a very good school which seems to be part of the Big 10 resume hunting (though perhaps a little overstated by it's fans. a big state school education=a big state school education pretty much across the board in my experience as an educator. taking mostly textbook classes with 200 people in a lecture hall taught by a grad student while texting and rocking iTunes is pretty much same wherever you go).

right now, Pitt is very good in football with the magic of Wanny and Jamie Dixon's hoops teams. give them some Big 10 type revenue sharing and the other sports get on-line as well. see: Baylor in the Big XII. people like to rip BU but they have a pretty complete athletic department. much more than Iowa State and Colorado at this point.

it doesn't give the Big 10 a "new" TV market, but it does solidify the existing outpost in the east time zone/seaboard, Penn State. i think that's just as important as another thin fan base somewhere else who really doesn't identify with the Chicago area-centric media market of the Big 10.

I think Pitt folks, at this point, want to make the most of the bEast. They are quite happy with the bEast hoops, and in football, the brass thinks that eventually they'll be able to consistently win the conference and get into BCS games. Of course, they have been thinking that last for a while...and it hasn't worked out for them. Pitt's AD and Wanny and Dixon all seem to basically scoff at the notion...

Goober McTuber wrote:

TheJON wrote:Goober, stay in the hoops board. You can't run Iowa smack over here as we not only own Wisconsin but you are our inferiors. I know you guys strive to be Iowa, that's why you take the coaches we don't want, but you never will be. In short, eat a dick.

Nobody in their right mind would strive to be Iowa. We take coaches you don’t want? You mean like Bielema?

http://www.theoneboard.com/board/viewto ... ma#p538171

Ferentz > Bielema.............and it's not even close.

But yeah, like I said...............IF we wanted him, he'd leave Wisconsin in a heartbeat.

But we don't want him. Unless he wants to be the DC when Norm Parker retires.

Apparently, the rumors that Pitt would join the Big Ten were just that -- rumors. At least for now, anyway. http://content.usatoday.com/communities ... PageReturn

Mace wrote:It's akin to me telling you guys I'm going car shopping and everyone trying to guess what model I'm going to purchase.

F-150

Those sheep ain't going to haul themselves.

TheJON wrote:

Goober McTuber wrote:

TheJON wrote:Goober, stay in the hoops board. You can't run Iowa smack over here as we not only own Wisconsin but you are our inferiors. I know you guys strive to be Iowa, that's why you take the coaches we don't want, but you never will be. In short, eat a dick.

Nobody in their right mind would strive to be Iowa. We take coaches you don’t want? You mean like Bielema?

http://www.theoneboard.com/board/viewto ... ma#p538171

Ferentz > Bielema.............and it's not even close.

But yeah, like I said...............IF we wanted him, he'd leave Wisconsin in a heartbeat.

Uh, no.

I think the Big10 already knows who they want/wants. I believe it will be more than 1 team, with a possibility of 3 teams coming to the conference.

Super Conferences are the future, once the Big10+1 grabs 3, then all hell breaks loose.

CU,Tejas, ? , and ? to Pac10?

Which part do you disagree with, Goober? The indisputable part about Ferentz being superior to Bielema or Bielema coming to Iowa (we don't want him anyways) if we did go after him?

You're a tard if you dispute either. Dude's got a Hawkeye tattoo on his ankle, he's an Iowa alum, he grew up a Hawkeye fan, he's coached at Iowa, and Iowa is a better program that pays their coaches more. Let's be honest here, if Iowa came calling (they won't), he wouldn''t even have to think twice about coming back home. Hell, he'd probably rather be Ferentz' water boy than be the head coach in Madison. Don't kid yourself, Goober...........you're not Iowa. You'll never be that good.

Adelpiero wrote:I think the Big10 already knows who they want/wants. I believe it will be more than 1 team, with a possibility of 3 teams coming to the conference.

Super Conferences are the future, once the Big10+1 grabs 3, then all hell breaks loose.

CU,Tejas, ? , and ? to Pac10?

You're certainly not alone in that thinking. I remember when the ACC expanded, there was some speculation on the ND homer boards that the ACC eventually would go to 16 teams, adding ND, Pitt, Syracuse and UConn, and split into north/south divisions at the Virginia/North Carolina border.

And I certainly could see the Big Ten going beyond 12 teams, because of its unique circumstances. Imho, the Big Ten wants ND, but doesn't think they'll get ND by itself. So I think the intention is to offer both Pitt and Syracuse, hoping that would bring ND along as the 14th team.

That having been said, I think that conferences in excess of 12 teams will be the exception rather than the rule. Scheduling starts to get very difficult once you get beyond 12 teams. Go to 16 teams, and a future split becomes all but inevitable -- see the WAC circa mid-late 1990's for an example of that.

As for CU and Texas, maybe the Big XII peeps can help me out here. Didn't CU get an offer to the Pac-10 a while back and turn it down? As for Texas, I realize they have differences with the Big XII, but as it is, their two most significant rivals -- Oklahoma and aTm -- are already in conference. And if they were to leave, I think the Texas leg would pressure them to play Taco Tech every year as well. So I don't see any advantage to moving to the Pac-10 for them.

Terry in Crapchester wrote: As for CU and Texas, maybe the Big XII peeps can help me out here. Didn't CU get an offer to the Pac-10 a while back and turn it down? As for Texas, I realize they have differences with the Big XII, but as it is, their two most significant rivals -- Oklahoma and aTm -- are already in conference. And if they were to leave, I think the Texas leg would pressure them to play Taco Tech every year as well. So I don't see any advantage to moving to the Pac-10 for them.

Colorado was offered by the Pac 10 in 94. now, rumors in Boulder and on the boards were CU and Utah to the Pac 10 which makes a lot more sense to me than Texas--but i'll believe it when i see it. i don't see how attractive CU is at this point. AD strapped, currently bad in both revenue sports. play the minimum D-1 sports. i don't see Texas joining a conference that doesn't let it try and throw it's weight around geographically and see itself as #1 kid on the block.

i'm not sure i agree that 12+ team super-conferences are the way of the future....but i do think BTPCF is certainly to become a kind of arms race between media market clusters and with exploiting the goofball BCS as the goal...every strategic step in that direction will likely have perverse results.

Terry in Crapchester wrote:

Adelpiero wrote:I think the Big10 already knows who they want/wants. I believe it will be more than 1 team, with a possibility of 3 teams coming to the conference.

Super Conferences are the future, once the Big10+1 grabs 3, then all hell breaks loose.

CU,Tejas, ? , and ? to Pac10?

And if they were to leave, I think the Texas leg would pressure them to play Taco Tech every year as well. So I don't see any advantage to moving to the Pac-10 for them.

The Texas legislature gives two sits about Taco Tech... outside of the big 2 (aTm, and ut) their baby is Baylor.

TheJON wrote:Iowa is a better program

Wisconsin football>Iowa football....not disputable.

WolverineSteve wrote:

TheJON wrote:Iowa is a better program

Wisconsin football>Iowa football....not disputable.

My guess is that Mace is a catch and release and JON is the marlin, isn't he, Santiago?

Mace wrote: He wouldn't be able to reel me into the boat.

Well, maybe if he had a bigger boat. I've posted on these boards for 10 years and never had any inclination to post a greater than symbol.

Mace>Jon

Wisconsin's 7-22 record over the last 29 vs Iowa is quite impressive.

The last 29?

:?

What? 29 years is a perfectly logical sampling. I mean, c'mon, it's every bit as logical as pulling out, oh, say, 31, 4, 59 or 16.