Theory on Big Ten expansion

friarfan · **Joined:** Thu Jun 12, 2003 1:09 pm **Posts:** 1527

Quote:

Ironically the two last MAC schools added, more than likely - Temple and Western Kentucky could have short stay. Temple to the new Big East and Western Kentucky to CUSA.

I can agree with this SportsKC.

I think Temple got the shaft. Yes there were reasons for pulling the plug but two of the three reasons for expulsion were taken care of before the final ax. The stadium issue was resolved when they moved into the Linc. Saturday control of the stadium was which was an issue with the Phillies at the Vet in Sept. and early Oct became a irrelevant issue. New practice facilities and offices on the Temple campus were also resolved. The attendance issue was getting resolved. Annual ave. attendance had climbed from 5-6000 to 18,000. A new coach, AD, president and attitude will help to resolve that too. Of course winning games will too. They have 3-4 years to do this to be reconsidered for readmission. No where does it state in a settlement with the BE that they can not reapply. It is amazing that schools like Pitt and Rutgers who were low in attendance and wins at the time would haver the nerve to abstain from voting for a sister state university and vote out a local neighbor.

If Temple rebounds with their new leadership I think they have the easiest road back to the BE. Their sports are already in another conference. They are in the northern footprint. Since it is the easiest road to follow and the BE is always in for the quick and easy fix they have a great possibility to return. Also they are the only school that everyone would agree on for the quick fix to #9 and the scheduling problems. Toss them a couple of million in BCS money and it saves 8 schools from forking out 400k - 750k for OOC games. They will be the bottom feeder like Duke in the ACC, Baylor in the B12, and Vandy in the SEC but they will now be a BCS school victory rather than a 1AA victory and bought on the cheap too.

If the BE splits in 2010 they would be needed for their BB program and the Philly BB market. However they would really be brought back in to preserve the BE status quo and prevent the split. The only other school the BE schools can agree on is Navy for number nine and Navy just ain't biting at this time. Heck they don't have to join with the deep pockets of Uncle Sam, ND, and the BCS for revenue. And they don't need the BE for bowls because they have a deal with the Poinsettia bowl on the west coast and have proved recently that they can take any bowl they want from the BE like everyone else with their new contract with Meinkee Bowl on the east coast.

As for Western Kentucky, they are not building a 45,000 seat stadium for the MAC which only draws 25,000 tops if that to a game. They are preparing for the next opening in Cusa if a team, or more than one team leaves for greener pastures when the MWC expands or the BE splits and takes a number of Cusa teams with Temple to form another all sports conference.

Great post! :)

I completely disagree that Temple got the shaft. Their moves were too little, too late. They were a drag on the conference & a laughing stock.

However, I read the rest of your post with great interest. You make excellent points. A revamped Temple would be a great fit for the Big East. I hope they can get their act together. Your point about the need for the Philly market in the event of a split is expecially compelling.

metropolitan · **Joined:** Mon Aug 29, 2005 1:20 pm **Posts:** 794

Quote:

Sure, thats all interesting info, but as far as the Big 10, they would be interested in an institution that adds great value to their ranks as similarly quoted by Commissioner Delaney about expansion about three years ago. An AAU membership would be something they would want to see in a member, among other academic characteristics, that is not Notre Dame.

The important thing is to put yourself in the shoes of the people that make decisions on expansion, the University Presidents and Chancelors and think of what they may be thinking when it comes to expansion. Not that the Big 10 is anywhere close to expanding right now.

I am not disagreeing with your message, Metropolitan.

The Big Ten, as we know, did offer an opening to Notre Dame around 1999. It was about harnessing their athletic attributes, mainly football, and encompassing their national fan base and impressive marketability. The Big 10 can exclaim AAU all it wants in talking about expansion, they did not invite Notre Dame because of their Sociology Department. Neither did Maurice Claret play for Ohio State because of his projected gpa and intellectual curiosity.

Agreed, Notre Dame is different from other B10s', excluding Northwestern, in that it is private, among other characteristics such as student body size. Northwestern has the independent governance and a greater research mission. While Notre Dame does have at least three graduate schools, their emphasis is undergraduate education.

As I alluded to in my prior post, there is also a reason that among the AAU membership, their is a notable absence of the multiple fine Roman Catholic Universities. In itself, Notre Dame not being a member of AAU would be an issue for the Big10, but should not, in itself, be a judgment of Notre Dame's academic quality within the confines of its mission (characteristic, yes; quality, not necessarily). Gezzz, I am defending why Notre Dame may not be B10 bound (I wouldn't want to excite TS2 too much! :)).

The Big 10's academic consortium is a lot about "show" (I know I will get missives about this ;D), minus the library exchanges, co-op conferences, funded faculty collaborations, etc. It does though, sell, and is something to flaunt internally and publicly. It is a convenient reference when faculty and certain other constituencies complain there is too much funding of, and emphasis on, college sports at the expense of other priorities. Athletics is core, and no football, it could disintegrate rather quickly. I am not sure what the University of Chicago would think.

If Notre Dame did join, and the Big 10 consortium was granted, by law, to conduct stem cell research, would Notre Dame be in a dilemma to participate? AAU?

"I think Notre Dame has an open invitation to join any conference at any time." Those a generally the words of Big Ten Commissioner Delaney back in 2003 regarding Notre Dame's invitation to join the Big Ten Conference:

http://www.mlive.com/football/stories/index.ssf?/stories/sports/20030515bigten_expansion.html

Okay, found the exact quote from Delany:

'But what about Notre Dame? Delany again: “I would say that Notre Dame probably has a standing invitation to join any conference it chooses.”'

http://www.nashvillecitypaper.com/index.cfm?section=7&screen=news&news_id=27959

So its clear that Notre Dame is an exception. Its academics are top notch without being members of the AAU. In the recent Carnegie Classification, Notre Dame is classified in the highest Research/Doctorate category along with all the Big Ten schools, Research University/Very-High Research:

http://www.carnegiefoundation.org/classifications/index.asp?key=63&search_flag=true&ref=783&start=783&BASIC2005=15&class_displaycount=10000&class_start=1

I don't think the Big Ten will require them to join the AAU. They are the exception to the rule.

Here are some other comments that are interesting regarding Big Ten expansion back in 2003.

Btw, Joe Pa wants Pittsburgh or Syracuse:

"I would like to add a 12th team," Paterno said in November. "Most of our coaches do, so we could have two divisions. I would hope it would go to Pitt or Syracuse, or somebody like that ..."

Bill Martin, AD of Michigan, stated the following about schools and academics:

"Frankly, we've heard a lot of discussion for as long as a year, a year and a half ago, that some of these moves could take place," Martin said Wednesday. "Obviously the (school) that's mentioned all the time is Notre Dame, but I think there's some other interest in looking at a school out East. I think one thing we'd want is a school with a strong academic reputation."

Also more quotes on Big Ten Expansion from that time:

http://www.purdueexponent.org/interface/bebop/showstory.php?date=2003/05/28§ion=opinions

The important bottom line from the Big Ten on expansion is this (from the above Purdue link, last series of paragraphs):

'The most important reason that the Big Ten should not expand is something that Big Ten commissioner Jim Delany has said every time that the expansion question has been asked. He says that a university that is being considered for addition has to bring something to the conference, not the other way around.

In other words, the newest addition should improve the conference not only athletically, but also academically.'

tman080808 · **Joined:** Tue Dec 13, 2005 11:17 am **Posts:** 147

My mistake, I didn't see U Mizzou tucked in there as an AAU member.

I guess that makes ISU and Mizzou equal in that catogory.

Mizzou gives them a market they don't currently have.

However, will Mizzou give them major rivalries with Iowa and Illinois? The Mizzou Kansas rivalry is the only one I know of.

However, the Cy Hawk series is a big deal.

sportskc · **Joined:** Sun Nov 09, 2003 11:18 pm **Posts:** 758

Mizzou already has a major rivarly with Illinois. They play an annual basketball game in St. Louis that is split half-Mizzou and half-Illini. Normally a great game, and Mizzou's only true out of conference rivarly. But Mizzou's rivarly with Kansas is the greatest followed by Nebraska and Oklahoma.

I think you are clearly overvaluing the Cy Hawk stuff. Granted its a great rivarly but its probally only about the 4th best rivarly in the North Central region. Is it better than Mizzou-KU, Nebraska-Oklahoma, Wisconsin-Minnesota?

tman080808 · **Joined:** Tue Dec 13, 2005 11:17 am **Posts:** 147

Nebraska, Oklahoma, Mizzou, and Kansas are not in the North Central United States.

I would rank Wisconsin-Minnesota about on par with Iowa-Iowa State as there is no Minnesota State or Wisconsin State for an instate rivalry to develop.

Minnesota-Iowa is also up there.

friarfan · **Joined:** Thu Jun 12, 2003 1:09 pm **Posts:** 1527

When I look in my Almanac, Nebraska is always included in the West North Central states since it is right next to Iowa. Depending on where they draw the line, Missouri & Kansas are sometimes included as well - which makes sense since the longest shared border of Missouri to the east is Illinois. Oklahoma is never included with this group since it is farther to the south.

metropolitan · **Joined:** Mon Aug 29, 2005 1:20 pm **Posts:** 794

Quote:

Nebraska, Oklahoma, Mizzou, and Kansas are not in the North Central United States.

I would rank Wisconsin-Minnesota about on par with Iowa-Iowa State as there is no Minnesota State or Wisconsin State for an instate rivalry to develop.

Minnesota-Iowa is also up there.

According to the US Census Bureau, which demarcate regions of the US, the states of Iowa, Kansas, Minnesota, Missouri, Nebraska, North Dakota and South Dakota are the 7 states that comprise the West North Central State Region

Wisconsin is an East North Central State

Though Minnesota and Wisconsin along with Michigan are commonly grouped together as Upper Midwest States or North Woods States, and North and South Dakota are also sometimes grouped together with all of them as Upper Midwest States as well. But the US Census Bureau has no region called the Upper Midwest.

Together, the West North Central States and the East North Central States comprise the Midwest

Oklahoma is a West South Central State

As far as Iowa and Iowa State. Well, I used to live in Iowa and worked with both U Iowa and ISU grads. ISU alums believe its a fierce rivalry, however, U of I alums may think its a rivalry, but not on the level of Minnesota-Iowa or Wisconsin-Iowa. U of I alums just brush off their ISU in-state brethern for Big 10 rivalries. Its less of a rivalry compared to Mizzou-KU, Nebraska-Oklahoma, and Minnesota-Wisconsin, and less so than Minnesota-Iowa and Wisconsin-Iowa, at least in Hawkeye fans eyes.

tman080808 · **Joined:** Tue Dec 13, 2005 11:17 am **Posts:** 147

BS.

You don't just get to quantify rivalries.

Iowa-Iowa State is on par with Minnesota-Wisonsin and Minnesota-Iowa.

Don't care what you say, you're wrong.

Also don't care how they compare with Nebraska-Oklahoma or Mizzou Kansas as neither of those are in the Upper Midwest.

Bottom line: Nebraska, Iowa State, and Mizzou are all AAU schools in the BXII north. Would any of them leave the BXII for the B10 if invited? Would any of them be invited? No one knows.

metropolitan · **Joined:** Mon Aug 29, 2005 1:20 pm **Posts:** 794

Then what are you doing then? You are quantifying.

You can believe what you want tman, but if many information sources are stating that Nebraska, Iowa, Missouri and Kansas are in the North Central US, many people are going to quote those resources. Being a resident of Nebraska for more than two decades and a resident of Iowa for a few years the residents of those two states believe that they are both in the "central" part of the US and the "northern" part of the US. All of these states are prairie states and have the Heartland feel.

And as far as Iowa-Iowa State. Its like Michigan-Michigan State, but even less of a rivalry. U of Michigan alums believe their "rival" is Ohio State, and Michigan State is a nuisiance. Then MSU beats them, and they have a change of heart. Iowa-Iowa State is the same way. U of Iowa grads just simply flake off or brush off Iowa State types as their rival. Their rivals are Iowa-Minnesota and Iowa-Wisconsin before Iowa-Iowa State.

As far as Oklahoma, Mizzou, Kansas, Nebraska. All except Missouri, Nebraska, Kansas, Oklahoma, Texas, South Dakota, North Dakota, Montana, Wyoming, Colorado, New Mexico, + Manitoba, Saskatchewan, and Alberta are all "Great Plains States and Provinces." The Center for Great Plains Studies at the University of Nebraska studies cultural stuff from these 10 states and three provinces + they also take in Minnesota, Iowa and Missouri in their studies, because they meet a substantial part of the criteria to be Great Plains states, just not to the degree of the other 10 states. Plus the three states of Minnesota, Iowa and Missouri had a significant influence on the region when the Great Plains was settled, and still do today. Joel Gareau, who wrote the The Nine Nations of North America calls all thirteen states the "Breadbasket," and even parts of Wisconsin and Illinois is also grouped in these states.

So lets change the name from "North Central" or "Upper Midwest" to "Breadbasket" or lets use the more widely used term: "Heartland."

In the "Heartland," the following rivalries are more significant than Iowa-Iowa State's rivalry:

Missouri-Kansas
Minnesota-Wisconsin
Nebraska-Oklahoma
Minnesota-Iowa
Wisconsin-Iowa

Iowa-Iowa State, Kansas-Kansas State, and Oklahoma-Oklahoma State would be about the same and ranked here.

Texas-Texas A & M are just a little too much out of the Heartland, as are Colorado-Colorado State, CSU-Wyoming, CSU-Air Force, Wyoming-Air Force, and New Mexico-New Mexico State.

tman080808 · **Joined:** Tue Dec 13, 2005 11:17 am **Posts:** 147

In the upper midwest, the following rivalries are about the same:

Minnesota-Wisconsin
Iowa-Iowa State
Minnesota-Iowa (a little less than the first two).

Don't care what you say, you're wrong.

Quote:

Being a resident of Nebraska for more than two decades and a resident of Iowa for a few years the residents of those two states believe that they are both in the "central" part of the US and the "northern" part of the US. All of these states are prairie states and have the Heartland feel.

And as far as Iowa-Iowa State. Its like Michigan-Michigan State, but even less of a rivalry. U of Michigan alums believe their "rival" is Ohio State, and Michigan State is a nuisiance. Then MSU beats them, and they have a change of heart. Iowa-Iowa State is the same way. U of Iowa grads just simply flake off or brush off Iowa State types as their rival. Their rivals are Iowa-Minnesota and Iowa-Wisconsin before Iowa-Iowa State.

As far as Oklahoma, Mizzou, Kansas, Nebraska. All except Missouri, Nebraska, Kansas, Oklahoma, Texas, South Dakota, North Dakota, Montana, Wyoming, Colorado, New Mexico, + Manitoba, Saskatchewan, and Alberta are all "Great Plains States and Provinces." The Center for Great Plains Studies at the University of Nebraska studies cultural stuff from these 10 states and three provinces + they also take in Minnesota, Iowa and Missouri in their studies, because they meet a substantial part of the criteria to be Great Plains states, just not to the degree of the other 10 states. Plus the three states of Minnesota, Iowa and Missouri had a significant influence on the region when the Great Plains was settled, and still do today. Joel Gareau, who wrote the The Nine Nations of North America calls all thirteen states the "Breadbasket," and even parts of Wisconsin and Illinois is also grouped in these states.

So lets change the name from "North Central" or "Upper Midwest" to "Breadbasket" or lets use the more widely used term: "Heartland."

Blah blah blah.

metropolitan · **Joined:** Mon Aug 29, 2005 1:20 pm **Posts:** 794

The The Floyd of Rosedale, the trophy that goes to the winner of the annual Minnesota-Iowa game is 71 years old. The Paul Bunyan's Axe is 56 years old.

Meanwhile, the Cy-Hawk Trophy is only 30 years old in comparison.

This year will mark the 100th game between Minnesota and Iowa. It will also mark the 82nd game between Wisconsin and Iowa. In comparison, this year will only be the 54th game between Iowa and Iowa State.

Minnesota-Iowa and Wisconsin-Iowa are more significant rivalries compared to Iowa-Iowa State.

tman080808 · **Joined:** Tue Dec 13, 2005 11:17 am **Posts:** 147

Nope.

Plus, both of those are just football games.

Cy Hawk is entire series ala UNC Duke.

You're wrong.

metropolitan · **Joined:** Mon Aug 29, 2005 1:20 pm **Posts:** 794

Tman,

Advice:

If you are going to make an argument that I am wrong and you are right, you need more than just a statement. You need to back up and demonstrate your claims with some proof. Otherwise you are just shouting and not providing demonstration as to why you are right and I am wrong.

Show me. Don't tell me.

tman080808 · **Joined:** Tue Dec 13, 2005 11:17 am **Posts:** 147

You haven't posted a shread of proof.

Just a bunch of opinion links that don't back up your opinion.

metropolitan · **Joined:** Mon Aug 29, 2005 1:20 pm **Posts:** 794

I have been stating my opinion all the time. It is self evident.

However, I have given information that explains why I believe the opinion that I have. This includes my years of living in the state of Iowa and being around both Iowa and Iowa State grads. Plus information that illustrates the long histories of the Minnesota-Iowa rivalry and the Wisconsin-Iowa rivalry.

What you have done is basicly just stated your opinion without providing much information to explain why you hold that opinion and why I should reconsider my opinion. I would like to see some critical analysis as to why you hold those opinions.

For the most part, the strongest rivalries for major conference schools are their in-state brethern and/or cross-city rival. For the Pac 10 this is especially true. This is also the case throughout the SEC, ACC. Also the case for Indiana-Purdue. But there are exceptions, which are:

Michigan-Michigan State: a heated rivalry, but Michigan sees Ohio State as its chief rival.

Oklahoma-Oklahoma State: a rivalry, but OU sees Texas and Nebraska as more of their rivals than OSU. The Texas and Nebraska games have more national significance.

Kansas-Kansas State: probably more heated that OU-OSU, but Kansas sees Missouri as their cheif rival, although KSU is almost up there.

Colorado-Colorado State: a heated rivalry, however, CU doesn't play in Ft. Collins, and CSU has a more heated rivalry with Wyoming. CU's top rival is Nebraska.

Iowa-Iowa State: a heated rivalry, but Minnesota and Wisconsin mean more to U of I than ISU.

Then there is the triad situations of BYU-Utah-Utah State, and UNC-Duke-NCSU. BYU-Utah is the chief rivalry of the state of Utah and in NC those schools are probably on equal footing.

In order for it to be the top rivalry, there has to be mutual respect on both sides as refering to themselves as their chief rival. Just because they are in the same state, doesn't make them both their number 1 rival.

Theory on Big Ten expansion

Who is online