Once we got past 10 member leagues, money is the only thing that determines a conference ideal size. With the Big Ten network making lots of money with each additional market, I would certainly never make a statement the Big Ten will remain at 14 of if this number is the maximum size any league should ideally have as members.

I like 10 member conferences, however, am a “dinosaur with this type of thinking”.

Some Big Ten reporters especially in Chicago that follow the Big Ten recently stated on ESPN they believe the opposite and likewise think the Big Ten will not stop at 14 and could possibly go after a school such as Florida State for the large Florida markets.

I would not hold my breath on the Big Ten stopping at 14.

From a pure marketing standpoint, the Big Ten would hit a major home run by taking Florida State and Georgia Tech as the 15th and 16th schools.

It's true that RU and the B1G have history, although it's more with RU's ink than the B1G's. To me, the risk isn't just the territory, or the program...it's the institution. Their being a Big Ten school doesn't elevate them to Princeton. They'll never be Penn State. They have problems, and taking Rutgers now is like taking a draft as a final copy. Oh well.

The costs involved for both schools is not going to be cheap. I knew the B1G would hold both to a definitive entry date, though.

And I agree with Lash...they aren't done expanding. Remember that 20-school model?

I have to agree with you, at least for the immediate future. From viewing SEC statements and domain comments, the SEC has no current desire to further expand. They've had enough recent adjusting to do, trying to incorporate Texas A&M & Mizzou into divisional scheduling.

While the B1G did render a hard slap at the ND/ACC establishment, the motive fundamentally pertained to TV broadcasting factors/rights/YES/etc., in the NE metro corridor.

Article out of Lincoln with comments from Nebraska Chancellor who does not rule out further Big Ten expansion down the road but says that league first plans to integrate Maryland and Rutgers into the conference.Link at http://journalstar.com/sports/huskers/f ... fc75f.html

If I am the Big Ten, would be seriously looking at expanding to 16 members. There are many benefits for the Big Ten network and scheduling works much better with 16 teams.

By splitting into four member pods, the Big Ten can ensure arch rivals meet each year and every 16 member play each other every two years. Keeping two seven member divisions leave some school off the schedule for many years.

Obvious choice would be to expand with the University of Virginia and University of North Carolina.

Pod 1: North Carolina, Virginia, Maryland, Rutgers

Pod 2: Penn State, Ohio State, Mich State, Michigan

Pod 3: Purdue, Indiana, Illinois, Northwestern

Pod 4: Wisconsin, Minnesota, Iowa, Nebraska

The above allow each member of each Pod to play each other and two members of the other three pods for a nine game conference schedule each season. Every two years each member of the other pods could rotate a play resulting in all 16 schools meeting every two years in football.

Now for the conference football championship game. I would cancel the championship game and let the new play off format decide which of the four pod champions deserve to be in the access bowls.

I see this format providing more access to the four team playoff and six access bowls especially if you had a situation where Nebraska were a winner of a pod and Ohio State a winner of another pod and both highly ranked, the committee may want see both schools in the four team playoff.

Or your could have the highest pod winner play the fourth place pod while the second place pod plays the third place pod winner.

Again let the new committee then determine if you wanted both winners to continue to play in the four team playoff possibly providing more opportunities for multiple Big 10 teams making the four team playoff in certain years. This would require an NCAA approval to allow two championship games, however, the SEC would likewise be looking at this format as well and support this movement.

If both would not qualify for the four team playoff, one school could make the playoff and the other winner play in the Rose Bowl. If non of the four team pod winners ranked high enough for the four team playoff, the access bowls would more than likely take both winners.

Regardless if you can work in a championship game, there are far more revenue benefits with 16 members

The reality of B1G expansion is, if really good institutions become available, how do you say no? How much is too much?

In the Big East thread, I expressed my disappointment with the way Rutgers "played" Navy. Well, after reading this lament from a Maryland board member, now it becomes a bit more clear. He's got some extremely good points:



This shouldn't happen in public, tax-funded, non-profit institutions of higher education.

Article out of Jersey discussing how Big Ten/Rutgers deal was put together at http://www.nj.com/news/index.ssf/2012/1 ... nd_sc.html

Both the UMD and RU stories give good reasons for the former conferences to sue the B1G for collusion. You're free to talk, but the NDA's preventing communication between the conferences when nothing is even concrete? How does one counter or compete?

Sadly, I suspect no affected conference will do so...because they all do this. And that's the bigger disappointment. I may be in the minority here, but I wish my government were bigger and stronger to make sure this crap doesn't happen.

It fits the bill, though. Penn State "blabbed" and the leak almost cost them a spot in the conference. Not even the Big Ten school coaches knew Penn State was in the loop, and at the very least, it cost the Nittany Lions about a year, being made to wait while things "settled down." Who knew about Nebraska only until days before the announcement, just to learn that the conversations were being had as much as five years previous to that point? Now we're learning UMD was on the table back in '10, and Rutgers a bit longer. Makes me wonder if one doesn't have a good pokerface (ahem, Missouri and Pitt), that there is truth to retracted offers.

I don't think the Big Ten did anything wrong.
Basically they laid down the rule, that, if you want to be considered for membership in our club, you need to abide by these rules during negotitaions.

I think legally they are within their rights to do that. However, they don't NEED to be that way. The Big Ten just doesn't want egg on their face (in public) if the ever get turned down.

What the schools did, on the other hand, in agreeing to these terms set by the Big Ten may have been inappropriate.
I think they owe it to their current conference to tell them that they are in on-going discussions,
and I think a Board Member at those schools should rightly stand up and scream that he / she can't perform his fiduciary duties to the stake-holderrs of the school (the state of Maryland, New Jersey)
if he /she is prohobited from asking questions (and he / she does not feel bound by some document that the Big Ten shoved down the lead negotitator's (I suppose the college president's) throat.

In other words, the Big Ten can insist you play by their rules to join. But schools officials OUGHT TO stand up and say "F*** this nonsense ! - there's $50 million of tax-payer money at stake here !"
I think a member of the board of trustees should take the latter stance, in act, it's his / her public duty to be above board in such a matter. If the Big Ten were then to declare the invitation void,
when someone at the school goes public - too bad !

A more proper way of handling this, would be for the University President to tell the Big Ten (Delany) up front that before he signs the gag order, he must pull the board members into the ddiscussion,
so that they are kept informed and can perform their jobs. A college president should never be blind-siding the college board of trustees (see: Spanier / Penn State).

Well, first off, even if conferences did fit the bill of anti-competitive laws (which they don't, because universities and conferences are non-profit organizations), there's no collusion because the Big Ten is one entity and one entity can't collude.

It's not like the Big Ten, SEC, ACC and Pac-12 got together, mapped out a realignment scenario and collectively ignored schools applications -- and even that isn't really collusion, since conferences aren't "management" and schools "labor" with collective bargaining between them. Schools don't need BCS conference affiliating -- or ANY conference affiliation -- to compete in Division I athletics and no one is "entitled" to it.

_________________
1897-1898 | 1900-06 | 1926-27 | 1929-30 | 1939 | 1942

I think we're stepping onto new ground here. There are transparency issues aplenty here, and who knows to what extent these matters run. The issue isn't just that these are tax-funded, non-profit schools, but their by-products (athletic departments) and their business doings (conferences, media/merchandising deals) that muddy the waters.

UMD's board member said he didn't think it fair they couldn't get a fair discussion with the ACC because of the terms the B1G laid down and the NDA. Navy's AD said Rutgers pretty much lied to them. Yes, nobody forced the phone calls, the meetings, or the vote, and nobody is entitled to these spiffy media deals, but I question how the B1G can make such demands in the first place, and thus, how broadcasting and merchandising interests can as well.

Mind you, I don't fault UMD for leaving the ACC for the B1G. I've said all along this made good financial sense for the institution, and it seemed like the ACC didn't concern itself much with the issues of one of its founding members. UMD alums can be angry their school ripped UVA, UNC, and Duke from them, when technically, those schools didn't exactly fight hard for their peer. The ACC, who doesn't seem to have a problem destroying other conferences, which, then, destroys other conferences, really had this one coming to them. It's the same with the Big East. However, this is not how public institutions and their hobbies are supposed to operate.

Going forward, I'm hopeful the B1G actually understands this coast's multi-sport interests rather than trying to jam the '69 OSU-UM game some more down their throats. This is where ice hockey and basketball need to be present. This is where lacrosse and soccer must get exposure. There's a reason PSU's the only football game in town around the North Atlantic...other schools have other fish to fry. The B1G is going to have to embrace that in order to sustain a business presence here.

Around 1990 though when PSU joined the Big Ten, "legality" injections into the processes were way less intense and engaged. TV rights were way less of a consideration. Also, PSU was a fb independent w/ A10 bb, and matters such as very high exit fees and bonding/notification agreements were basically lacking. There was a couple of schools in the B10 then that voiced they did not want to expand, essentially not adding PSU. If I recall correctly, Ohio State was a sponsor for PSU joining; and I believe at the time, the, then, Illinois President, think was Chair of B10 Pres. group, had some ties to Penn State and was an advocate.

I do recall that PSU had an undefeated season soon after joining and went to the Rose Bowl and beat Oregon. But some B10 figures, including from Michigan, voted for Nebraska to be #1 in the polls for the polling national title. I believe that was pre-BCS. Obviously, there was some jealous feelings toward PSU at the time. It was not like now, where conferences better support there own in these situations, because each school's own revenue enhancements are directly tied to such outcomes.

Article from Maryland paper discussing how Big Ten/Maryland deal was put together at http://www.diamondbackonline.com/news/n ... 0f31a.html

Good post, Freaked. They sure kept it quiet around MD for quite awhile.

By "Mid South" it looks like Big 10 is interested in UVA and UNC too.

It's Louisville

http://www.cbssports.com/collegefootbal ... louisville