A ten team Big Ten

[Style]

Mr. Bucknuts on how to get a true conference champion:

Well, somebody has to say what needs to be said and I nominate myself – once again. What needs to be said? The rotation of teams in the Big Ten coming on and off the schedule is asinine. Or ass-in-ten, as this case may be. Some years we play Wisconsin, some years Illinois. Or maybe Purdue comes back around or, well…you get the picture. And it’s not a pretty picture. Especially when two teams could tie for the championship of the conference, yet not get the opportunity to play each other. It’s one thing to forego a conference championship game, it’s another thing to select your champion based on some administrative wonk’s picking and choosing.

How to solve the issue. Simple. Have the Big Ten go back to being – ten. Everyone will play three out-of-conference games and then everyone will play nine conference games, which include (surprise!) everyone. How to get there? Eliminate one school from the conference and I nominate: Northwestern.

Someone has to go, just like it made so much sense at the time to add Penn State. Northwestern doesn’t “fit” with the academic profile or the state-oriented profile of the rest of the conference. And we really need to get the Big Ten back to Ten.

http://ohiostate.scout.com/2/579072.html

I like it. This is a superior to what they have now, and superior to adding a 12th team and a conference championship game. (I despise conference championship games.) Ohio State doesn't need to be playing Bowling Green and Youngtstown State anyway.

Thoughts?

 

[cavincali]

Doesnt make sense to have more than ten teams in a conference named the Big Ten.

Why not try what the Big 12 does with the north and the South. Only thing is that it would either put OSU/um in the same side, or the only way for the rivalry game would take place would be in the title game.

 

[cdt]

I'm on board with that get rid of Northwestern..my second nominee would be Indiana is Illinois still in the conference?

 

[Mac]

You cant get rid of Indiana just because they suck at Football, they destroy the big ten in a ton of other sports.

Northwestern is the wise choice...if you were going to eliminate a school. But because it has a good education does not make any sense. I guess Bucknuts wants to dummy down the Big Ten to reach the education level of OSU, and I can see why..

But Michigan is the best education in the conference anyway...so that is a moot point.

Overall, I think size wise and just over all sports wise, Northwestern would be better fit in a smaller conference.

 

[Smooth]

Yea, Northwestern doesn't belong in there as well as Purdue.. Everyone else is fine by me..

 

[Style]

Northwestern is the wise choice...if you were going to eliminate a school. But because it has a good education does not make any sense. I guess Bucknuts wants to dummy down the Big Ten to reach the education level of OSU, and I can see why..

NW is the only private school in the Big Ten. That is why they are the obvious choice for a school to be whacked, and Bucknuts said as much. Their high academic standards are a good thing for the conference as a whole, whether you're a Buckeye supporter or not.

Why not try what the Big 12 does with the north and the South. Only thing is that it would either put OSU/um in the same side, or the only way for the rivalry game would take place would be in the title game.

If you're going to go with 12 teams and 2 divisions, you absolutely have to put UM and OSU in separate divisions, for the purpose of balance. You don't want the two best teams in the same division, that would be silly. When people talk about adding a 12th team, ND's name always comes up, as they are the logical choice (and really only choice) from the Big Ten's perspective. It's not worth it for ND to do it, so it will never happen, but for the sake of argument lets say you add ND. The two best teams are UM and OSU, so you put them in separate divsions. The next two best teams are PSU and ND, so you put them in separate divisions. You'd pair UM and ND in one division, b/c of their rivalry, and OSU and PSU in the other (b/c of their supposed rivalry, but mainly b/c ND and UM belong together). This also makes geographical sense, if that is a concern.

Now, I know what you're saying, you can't have UM in a different division b/c it destroys the rivalry, they have to play every year. Well, that is easily solved. Other conferences have a solution for this same problem. I don't know what they call it specifically, but what it boils down to is each team designates one team in the other division as their non-divisional rival, and they play them every year. So OSU would play the 5 other teams in it's division every year, UM every year, and the other 2 conference opponants would be rotated among the remaining schools in the other division.

There is still one huge problem with this system, however. You often have a championship game where it is a rematch of a game that already occured this season. This is lame. This would be super lame if it meant that Ohio State and Michigan played each other twice, back to back, which is probably what would happen every 2 or 3 years. It would totally take the luster off the regular season matchup. Plus, this makes it extremely hard to go undefeated and get a shot at the national title. Just ask the SEC coaches. They hate the championship game. The Big Ten schedule is brutal enough with out adding in a conference championship game. OSU already has one of the tougher schedules in the nation year in and year out. No need to make it crazy tough.

Ten teams is soooo much better.

There is one other solution, and it works under the current 11 team system, or 12 if you wanted to go that route. That is to add a conditional conference championship game. That is, you play a conference championship game only if the champion has not already been determined through regular season play. So if you had a case where two teams had identical conference records AND they had not played each other, only then would you have a conference championship game. This would be superior to having co-champions, like we see now.

The problem here is conference championship games are big money. If you were going to have one, the Conference would want to have it manditory, not conditional, b/c of the dollars and cents.

 

[The George]

we dont need to subtract a team we need to add a team... specifically Notre Dame

now Notre Dame doesnt wanna join because they are making a ton of money with NBC

welll next year the Big 10 channel BS starts and hopefully we start making a ton of money that way as a conference because we have to show ND that they can make as much money in the B10 as they can as an independant which is very hard to see

another team worth looking at is Pitt....right in the B10's back yard and is a large school that has very similar ways as the other B10 schools have

 

[Style]

Pitt's academics are well below that of the Big Ten. They are not a good fit.

Honestly, if you're going to add a team, there is only one choice: Notre Dame. No one else makes sense. The Big Ten would rather sit pat then add a team just to add them. They can't add ND (b/c it makes no sense for ND to do it), so they don't add anyone. I wouldn't expect that to change.

Subtracting a team, however, could make sense. You may not be aware of this, but the big reason to not add a team just to add them (ie. adding the wrong team) is b/c it costs the conference money. The schools all split the money made in bowl games. When you split the money by 12 it's substantially less than if you split it by 11. Which is why you only add a team that's going to make up the difference, and that would be ND. However, if you subtract a team, now you're splitting the money by 10. You have to follow the money when you talk about stuff like this, it could make cent$ to subtract a team.

Oh, and this also another reason ND won't sign up. Not only do they currently get their own TV contract, but they don't have to split bowl money either.