T1B

I really enjoy the fact that PSU is in the b10. I much prefer the matchups PSU gets in conference to the matchups we used to get from the teams that became the Big East. I think it's a good fit in a variety of other respects, etc., blah, blah.

What I detest is the fact that the conference treats The Game as the de facto Conference Championship Game...and prevents teams from scheduling games after The Game. There is some exception for playing Hawaii, I guess...but this really stinks.

Yes, traditionally OSU and UM are the heavyweights in the Big 10. Yes, most years this arrangement has made perfect sense. However, it's time this crap got deep-sixed, because other teams are often in the equation for the championship of the conference.

Also, teams are expected to sandwich their 12 game schedules into the time before The Game...which has resulted in schedules without bye weeks. Paterno and others had to fight to allow the conference to consider this problem, now teams can schedule early enough to get a bye week...but the real problem, in my view, is the arrogant stance that no game should follow The Game.

The rest of College Football continues for another 7-10 days afterward, and some of the best, most exciting football is played at that point of the season...all mutely taken in by the beaten whelps of the Big 10.

Look - The Game is always going to be huge, even when the participants are having down seasons. There's no reason to try to force an emphasis to The Game...it's going to get it no matter what.

The conference is better for the fact that other teams are emerging. Let things play out on the football field, rather than in the AD offices...or in Jim Delaney's den, just past the UM and OSU flags and banners and stacks of gold bars.

Hey - I respect OSU and UM quite a bit. You don't have to force it down my throat already.

JoPa coached the majority of his career without bye weeks, well maybe not him because he was an indie. But for the most part bye weeks have been a relatively newer deal.

Tell the B10 to find a 12th team already.

With a little luck Wisconsin will have rendered The Game meaningless by 11/15/2008.

^^^^^^^^^^

why do they play Iowa?

I say fuck this shit...play games past the OSU/UM game I could care less...I don't buy the layoff though...if Michigan, Iowa, Wisconsin, PSU, etc can play WELL in bowl games with that layoff then OSU should be able to...but I would like to see the Conference either add the 12th team and get a CCG or allow teams to play until the last weekend...

FLW Buckeye wrote:Tell the B10 to find a 12th team already.

Pitt, please.

buckeye_in_sc wrote:^^^^^^^^^^

why do they play Iowa?

^^^^^^^^^
??????????????

If Wisconsin runs the table, they'll be 8-0 in conference as of 11/15/2008, tOSU and UM will each have at least one loss, and The Game the following weekend will be meaningless.

WolverineSteve wrote:JoPa coached the majority of his career without bye weeks, well maybe not him because he was an indie. But for the most part bye weeks have been a relatively newer deal.

Do you mean that byes are new in the Big 10? Joe speaks of byes as something they always had. I think the pressure began to build in the late 80s, when the number of games played each season started to inch higher...and he was talking about it a lot when the NCAA started mentioning a 12 game season.

PSU used to play Pitt over the Thanksgiving weekend. When we started conference play, we finished football a week earlier than we always had.

PSUFAN wrote:

WolverineSteve wrote:JoPa coached the majority of his career without bye weeks, well maybe not him because he was an indie. But for the most part bye weeks have been a relatively newer deal.

Do you mean that byes are new in the Big 10? Joe speaks of byes as something they always had. I think the pressure began to build in the late 80s, when the number of games played each season started to inch higher...and he was talking about it a lot when the NCAA started mentioning a 12 game season.

PSU used to play Pitt over the Thanksgiving weekend. When we started conference play, we finished football a week earlier than we always had.

I may be mistaken, and I'm definately too lazy to do the research. I think byes in the B10 were non-existent either prior to the 11th team or the 12 game schedule. Again I could be smoking the good stuff here, but I don't remember having weeks off during the season.

I just looked back at Wisconsin’s schedule over the past 30-some years. I came to UW as a freshman in 1970 when they played an 11-game schedule in 11 weeks. They typically started the second or third weekend in September.

In 1986 they played 12 games but started a week earlier and played Hawaii (I believe back then that a game played outside of the continental 48 didn’t count against the limit). They squeezed in an extra game a couple of times in the 90s this way or by playing in the Kickoff Classic.

1988 appears to be where they started moving up the schedule to start a week earlier but still playing 11 games with a bye week mixed in. The bye week disappeared in 1991, 1992, 1994. In 1995 they started a week earlier and got 2 bye weeks.

In 1997 the bye week disappeared again, then came back in 1998, then disappeared again in 1999. It appears that in 2000 they went to the 12-game season starting in late August and always incorporating at least one bye week.

Except in 2004 when we went back to 11 games with no bye week.

Or 2006 and 2007 when we played 12 games with no bye weeks.

MgoBlue-LightSpecial wrote:

FLW Buckeye wrote:Tell the B10 to find a 12th team already.

Pitt, please.

pitt???

get back in line psu :D

Adelpiero wrote:

MgoBlue-LightSpecial wrote:

FLW Buckeye wrote:Tell the B10 to find a 12th team already.

Pitt, please.

pitt???

Hell, if I recall correctly, wasn't the B10 eyeballing Mizzou to join the conference? This was awhile back (1980s perhaps), but I thought there was some discussion about it.

FLW Buckeye wrote:

MgoBlue-LightSpecial wrote:

FLW Buckeye wrote:Tell the B10 to find a 12th team already.

Pitt, please.

Hell, if I recall correctly, wasn't the B10 eyeballing Mizzou to join the conference? This was awhile back (1980s perhaps), but I thought there was some discussion about it.

still a rumor, and it started back up last season, with Big10 eying a 12th team. It would make the most sense, but tough for MU to leave KU, and the old big8 teams. But it would be a win win for both

Is Missouri a research school? Big-10 won't add them if they're not. I think that would be a decent pickup for the conference. It makes logistical sense at least. The St. Louis area is already part Big-10 and it may help the conference in recruiting both Kansas City and St. Louis as Mizzou is right in the middle. Right now, most of KC-STL is Big-12 country but that could be changed by Mizzou joining the league.

I really don't know who else makes sense other than Notre Dame, but we know that's not happening.

Missouri and Kansas can still play an OOC game every year. Last year was the first time ever that game had any meaning other than bragging rights so it's not like the Big-12 would be losing some big game. That rivalry is meaningless outside of Kansas/Missouri. No one else cares about it, but it is a great rivalry. So instead of playing Illinois OOC, Mizzou could play Kansas. They could even still have the game at the end of the year if need be and play it in KC. I think it would even add to the rivalry. Not only would it be Kansas-Mizzou but also Big-10 vs Big-12.

The only possibilities I see for the Big-10 are Missouri and Notre Dame. I'm not sure Pittsburgh makes a lot of sense because their fan support for football is so lousy and I see no point in trying to take over another Northeast market. Tapping more into the Kansas City and St. Louis markets make more sense and Mizzou has better fan support than Pitt.

What I would like to see is Northwestern be dropped. Missouri and Notre Dame be picked up. Of course, this is not going to happen. Just my personal preference. I see no reason why Northwestern isn't in the MAC. I know, I know.....they're a great academic school. Right, who cares? It's not like the NCAA gives 2 shits about academics. It's all about money. To me, financially and athletically they're a better fit for the MAC. We don't need to worry about covering the Chicago market as Chicago is filled with college sports fans of all Big-10 teams anyways. There's no Northwestern fans in Chicago. You name a Big-10 team and there's more fans in Chicago of that team than Northwestern. They belong in the MAC or CUSA. Maybe not academically, but since when is college athletics about academics???

i'll do my best frozen here and suggest n'western's status as a private institution is what keeps them in the big ten. you're right: it's not about academics.

Adelpiero wrote:

MgoBlue-LightSpecial wrote:

FLW Buckeye wrote:Tell the B10 to find a 12th team already.

Pitt, please.

pitt???

I'd take ND over Pitt, but ND isn't a realistic option. Pitt makes sense in a variety of ways.

1) Academically, Pitt's in line with most Big Ten scools and a top research university

2) In a large market and solid recruiting territory (which is good for the entire conference)

3) It makes sense geographically. PSU is already in the conference and it's further east than Pitt. Western PA borders Ohio, which is undoubtedly considered "Big Ten Country."

4) It has tradition and potential to be a good football program (a competent coach would be a step in the right direction)

5) Good basketball program

So lay it all out for me. Why not Pitt?

TheJON wrote:Is Missouri a research school? Big-10 won't add them if they're not. I think that would be a decent pickup for the conference. It makes logistical sense at least. The St. Louis area is already part Big-10 and it may help the conference in recruiting both Kansas City and St. Louis as Mizzou is right in the middle. Right now, most of KC-STL is Big-12 country but that could be changed by Mizzou joining the league.

Get fucked, Jon. Mizzou is part of the original Big Eight, though I realize you were in diapers at the time and wouldn't know a damn thing about that. You think we're going to sever ties with Nebraska, Oklahoma, Colorado? I won't even mention Kansas because my passionate hatred towards them would make me seem unbalanced.

You may as well ask Tejas to hook up with the Tleven. Matter of fact, the Big XII should trade Baylor for Illinois and call it all good.

MgoBlue-LightSpecial wrote:
I'd take ND over Pitt, but ND isn't a realistic option. Pitt makes sense in a variety of ways.

1) Academically, Pitt's in line with most Big Ten scools and a top research university

2) In a large market and solid recruiting territory (which is good for the entire conference)

3) It makes sense geographically. PSU is already in the conference and it's further east than Pitt. Western PA borders Ohio, which is undoubtedly considered "Big Ten Country."

4) It has tradition and potential to be a good football program (a competent coach would be a step in the right direction)

5) Good basketball program

So lay it all out for me. Why not Pitt?

For a while I would have agreed with all of this. JON's right, though...Pitt's fan base is, in all likelihood, permanently compromised.

No way Pitt draws less than NW. Those games are a joke, the field is that of a decent HS program. I've been to IU games that were at half capacity as well, how many Minnie fans fill the baggy dome (I know they're about to move outdoors)? Pitt's football fanbase would be inline with at least the middle of the conference. They would undoubtdedly sell out for Michigan, OSU, PSU. I think it would be a win-win. Better conference for Pitt and Pitt would strengthen the B10+.

All right, all right. I agree again. Really, though...you should hear the Pitt folks talk about their efforts towards energizing the fan base. With my very own eyes, I have watched Steve Pedersen basically beg a friend of mine (who owns a restaurant that Steve likes a lot) to think about buying season tickets.

When I go to a game at PSU or when I have been to other Big 10 gamedays, I marvel at the rows and rows of motor homes that surround the stadiums. A fan base like that is truly an impressive display of wealth and willpower.

None of that seems possible at Pitt. Those folks have had their hopes dashed over and over and over and over. I think that Pedersen would have to actively market to fans of conference visitors to sell out games...apart from the PSU game, of course.

PSUFAN wrote:For a while I would have agreed with all of this. JON's right, though...Pitt's fan base is, in all likelihood, permanently compromised.

Yeah, I realize the fan base and facilities aren't as strong as other Big Ten teams, and that's one of the drawbacks with Pitt. I suspect, like Rutgers, the fans might come out of the woodwork once the program starts heading in the right direction.

(I don't know how the Rutgers attendance is doing now but I know they were selling out games after their breakout season).

But you know more about the program than me, that's just what history tells you with ANY major D1 program. Thing is, there are going to be positives and negatives with any team. I think when you look at all the factors combined, Pitt makes the most sense. I'm also coming at this from a basketball perspective. Jamie Dixon is a helluva coach and as long as he's there, Pitt will be good - imo.

Dixon's contract was just renewed.

I think from a fan perspective, adding Pitt makes a lot of sense. From a spreadsheet perspective, the one that the AD offices operate with, it makes less sense.

When it comes to expansion, I think the Big Ten, or at least Big Ten fan, has a choice to make.

When it comes to expansion, do you want the best possible fit for your conference? Or do you want an immediate CCG, and all else be damned? With all due respect to the Big Ten, I don't think they can get both, at least not right now.

If it's the former, I think the top choices are either ND, Pitt or possibly Missouri. But the Big Ten won't get any of them right away.

If it's the latter, I think you have to realize that all of the top choices are probably unavailable for the Big Ten right now.

Notre Dame just isn't interested.

As PSUFAN pointed out, Pitt isn't a good fit from a spreadsheet standpoint. You could say that about any Big East school -- UConn, Cincinnati, Rutgers or Syracuse (I eliminated USF due to geographic concerns, and Louisville and West Virginia due to academic concerns). For that matter, from strictly a spreadsheet standpoint, it wouldn't make sense for any of the Big East schools to consider joining the Big Ten either.

Whitey's usually a provincial idiot, but he's probably correct in pointing out that Missouri won't break its conference ties for the Big Ten. Not under the current situation, anyway.

88 once nominated BC as a candidate for the Big Ten, and they'd be a better fit geographically than they are in the ACC. From a conference scheduling standpoint, it's likely that their only demand would be an annual matchup with Penn State, which the conference could still fit in with the North/South alignment favored by Michigan and Ohio State, and would probably grant. But there are still problems from BC's standpoint with joining the Big Ten. First, doing so would only cement their reputation as a conference-hopper. Second, and perhaps more importantly, joining the Big Ten would seriously jeopardize BC's chances of resuming a series vs. ND (whom it considers its most significant rival, by far) unless the Big Ten is willing to relax its September-only rule when it comes to scheduling ND.

Of course, if a CCG is your goal, all you really need is a warm body. Temple or Miami of Ohio would fit that bill nicely. But Big Ten fan needs to go in with eyes wide open, if that's the case.

Seriously, who the fuck cares about a Big 11 CCG, except from the money grubbing whores that are league brass? Look at how much the ACC title game has done for that league: WHITEY FUCKING SHIT. Let the SEC, Big 12, CUSA and MAC have their fucking title games, move THE GAME back a weekend, and leave it at that.

Screw_Michigan wrote:Seriously, who the fuck cares about a Big 11 CCG, except from the money grubbing whores that are league brass? Look at how much the ACC title game has done for that league: WHITEY FUCKING SHIT. Let the SEC, Big 12, CUSA and MAC have their fucking title games, move THE GAME back a weekend, and leave it at that.

In fairness, when the ACC expanded, they expected Miami or Florida State, not Wake Forest, to be an annual participant in their CCG. Of course, the irony is that they raided the Big East, damn near put the Big East out of existence at the time, and yet now, the Big East is at least arguably the stronger conference of the two.

You're right that a CCG is primarily about money. But I was responding to those who stated that they wanted one. Imho, the Big Ten would be better off dropping one of its members and going to a Pac-10 style round-robin format, but dropping a member is problematic also.