Jim Delany poo-poos Big Ten expansion in football

[Kodos]

Come on. Let's get the Big Ten to twelve by adding Notre Dame, and let's get a college football playoff. A'ight?

hxxp://sports.espn.go.com/ncf/news/story?id=4141080&campaign=rss&source=NCFHeadlines

Paterno's expansion plea met with no-go

By Adam Rittenberg, ESPN.com

The Big Ten has no immediate plans to expand, and it would take more than a desire for a football championship game and a longer regular season for the league to add a 12th member, commissioner Jim Delany said.

Penn State coach Joe Paterno last week called on the Big Ten to expand, saying the conference goes "into hiding for six weeks" while other leagues hold championship games and play into the first week of December.

This fall, nine of 11 Big Ten teams will finish the regular season on Nov. 21, two weeks before teams from the other five BCS conferences. Come the 2010 season, the Big Ten adds a permanent bye week that will extend the regular season by one week.

Paterno expressed concern that the Big Ten disappears from college football's radar, which hurts league members vying for a spot in the national championship game. The Big Ten owns a six-game losing streak in BCS bowl games and hasn't won the Rose Bowl since 2000.

"Everybody else is playing playoffs on television," Paterno said. "You never see a Big Ten team mentioned, so I think that's a handicap."

Delany responded to Paterno's comments Monday, saying that while a league championship game has its benefits, particularly from a marketing perspective, expansion requires much more.

"It's not the reason you would expand," Delany told ESPN.com. He also said Paterno isn't the only Big Ten coach who has stumped for expansion in recent years.

"The issue has come up with our football coaches a couple times -- with the extra week and if we did expand, would we be more competitive?" Delany said. "I would say in some years they might be right. But has it enhanced the competitiveness of the ACC in football? Has it enhanced the competitiveness of the WAC? I don't know.

"Just because you have a championship doesn't make you more competitive. It's about coaching the players. The SEC game has been a marketing bonanza. I wouldn't discount that. But others have struggled with it."

Delany admits the lack of a championship game puts the Big Ten at a marketing disadvantage, which also was the case before the Big Ten added league tournaments in basketball in 1995 (women's) and 1998 (men's). Although Delany pushed for the basketball tournaments, he pointed out that the events haven't always translated to more success for its members in the NCAA tournament.

"I still think the tournament's a good thing, but it wouldn't be the reason why you'd expand a conference, to have a men's basketball tournament," he said. "It's too big a question."

The 82-year-old Paterno said the Big Ten remains a league dominated by a select few who "snicker" whenever he brings up the prospect of expansion. His claim surprised Delany, who recently spent several hours with Paterno in New York. The expansion issue never came up during their discussions.

"Coach Paterno ... is as important a coach, leader, teacher as we've ever had in college sports," Delany said. "So what he says gets disproportionate weight, and properly so. Whether it's in a coaches' meeting, a meeting of athletic directors or university presidents, his work and recommendation still means a lot. Coach Paterno has a lot of experience in this area. He's played around with conference configurations. He knows it's not easy, and he knows what he says matters.

"But the point of it is, [expansion is] a very big issue, it's a fundamental issue and it's a back-burner issue right now."

Paterno mentioned Syracuse, Rutgers and Pittsburgh as possible 12th members for the Big Ten. Delany declined to discuss specific teams from other conferences but said a school would need to fit the Big Ten, not just from a marketing perspective, but with its academic vision, athletic success and commitment, among other factors.

And since the Big Ten's second attempt to add Notre Dame fizzled in 1999, no other school has surfaced as a viable candidate for expansion.

"There's not an obvious move," Delany said. "There might be to some coaches, including Coach Paterno, but it's not as obvious to the university presidents and to the athletic directors.

"There are a lot [of schools] that could take a lot away, but there aren't a lot that could bring so much to make the choice an easy one. You have to have a lot to make something go like this, and it's broader than really a championship game or a basketball tournament."

[Matthean]

They already did a previous article about this with Paterno. He basically said there needs to be 2-3 people in power that eventually step down for there to be a chance that they expand to 12, and he wishes he was about 20 years younger because he would put up a bigger fight for it, but as it stands now he'll be done with coaching by the time it happens.

In all honesty, I'm not so sure adding a 12th team and having a championship game is as much of a fix for the Big Ten as people make it out to be. Should they do it? Well, yeah.

[Passacaglia]

Originally Posted by Matthean

Should they do it? Well, yeah.

I dunno. What are the Big Ten's goals, anyway?

[Kodos]

To me, it seems like it could be a shot in the arm for Big Ten football. At the very least, having a championship game would add a certain amount of entertainment value.

[dacman]

Part of the "goes into hiding" problem will be somewhat aleviated next year when the conference schedule goes a week later into the year with most teams getting a bye at some point.

Considering how often they get 2 teams into the BCS, arguably undeservingly, I wouldn't change a thing.

[Dr. Sak]

If they don't get a 12th...I wish they would take away an OOC game and make each team play 9 conference games.

[dacman]

Originally Posted by Dr. Sak

If they don't get a 12th...I wish they would take away an OOC game and make each team play 9 conference games.

[snarky cynic]
OK, well when you come up with a schedule that has an 11-team conference playing 9 games each then they'll do that
[/snarky cynic]

[gstelmack]

Well, when an 11-team conference calls itself the Big Ten, what do we expect?

[panerd]

I love it when schools act like the conferences exist for any other reason than sports. They always talk about academic standards etc. In all of my time at Mizzou I don't remember any dealings with Kansas or Colorado or Oklahoma in anything except sports. Am I wrong on this?

[Dr. Sak]

Originally Posted by dacman

[snarky cynic]
OK, well when you come up with a schedule that has an 11-team conference playing 9 games each then they'll do that
[/snarky cynic]

The Pac 10 plays 9 conference games. I just hate that some years teams dont play both Ohio State and Michigan...shouldn't happen. This way you could play all the teams but one...and rotate.

[Kodos]

Originally Posted by panerd

I love it when schools act like the conferences exist for any other reason than sports. They always talk about academic standards etc. In all of my time at Mizzou I don't remember any dealings with Kansas or Colorado or Oklahoma in anything except sports. Am I wrong on this?

Maybe they have competing math teams or something.

[RendeR]

"The issue has come up with our football coaches a couple times -- with the extra week and if we did expand, would we be more competitive?" Delany said. "I would say in some years they might be right. But has it enhanced the competitiveness of the ACC in football? Has it enhanced the competitiveness of the WAC? I don't know.

The fact that his argument is based on comparing the BIG 10 to the WAC and ACC conferences should be grounds for his removal from his job. He's obviously a fucking moron.

[dawgfan]

The problem with expansion is finding the right fit. Everyone says "Notre Dame" for the Big-10, and while that would make a lot of sense from the perspective of the Big-10, does it really benefit Notre Dame? And if Notre Dame says "no", who else fits that is likely to say "yes"?

It's easy to look at things from strictly an on-field football perspective, but when you account for the many other factors involved with the decision, it becomes a lot harder to work out.

[Dr. Sak]

Why would Notre Dame want to join the Big Ten? They have their own TV deal for football...steal bowls from the Big East...and play every other sport in the Big East. They are having their cake and eating it too.

[dacman]

Originally Posted by Dr. Sak

The Pac 10 plays 9 conference games. I just hate that some years teams dont play both Ohio State and Michigan...shouldn't happen. This way you could play all the teams but one...and rotate.

You missed the point -- I'll be more direct.

The Pac-10 has 10 teams. 10 teams * 9 conference games / 2 teams per game = 45 conference games total

Big (11) Ten would be 11 teams * 9 conference games / 2 teams per game = 49.5 conference games total. Can't have 1/2 a game -- someone would have to play 8 or 10 games. In other words, it simply doesn't work.

The Michigan/Ohio State thing has been mitigated somewhat. They adjusted the schedules so that no one ever missed both again. That might still be a year or two away.

[molson]

Originally Posted by dacman

You missed the point -- I'll be more direct.

The Pac-10 has 10 teams. 10 teams * 9 conference games / 2 teams per game = 45 conference games total

Big (11) Ten would be 11 teams * 9 conference games / 2 teams per game = 49.5 conference games total. Can't have 1/2 a game -- someone would have to play 8 or 10 games. In other words, it simply doesn't work.

The Michigan/Ohio State thing has been mitigated somewhat. They adjusted the schedules so that no one ever missed both again. That might still be a year or two away.

nerd

[Dr. Sak]

Originally Posted by dacman

You missed the point -- I'll be more direct.

The Pac-10 has 10 teams. 10 teams * 9 conference games / 2 teams per game = 45 conference games total

Big (11) Ten would be 11 teams * 9 conference games / 2 teams per game = 49.5 conference games total. Can't have 1/2 a game -- someone would have to play 8 or 10 games. In other words, it simply doesn't work.

The Michigan/Ohio State thing has been mitigated somewhat. They adjusted the schedules so that no one ever missed both again. That might still be a year or two away.

So you are saying there is no way that 5 conference games could go on each week and the team that doesn't have a conference game that week either have a bye week or an OOC game?

[QuikSand]

I'm not sure that this has jbmagic blackjack potential, but I'll be watching just in case.

[digamma]

Originally Posted by QuikSand

I'm not sure that this has jbmagic blackjack potential, but I'll be watching just in case.

This won't have the same flair the +5, +5, +5, oh fuck demonstration, but I'll give it a shot.

Team: Off Week
Penn State: 1
Iowa: 2
Indiana: 3
Minnesota: 4
Michigan: 5
Illinois: 6
Purdue: 7
Northwestern: 8
Michigan State: 9
Ohio State: 10
Wisconsin: OH FUCK

[panerd]

Originally Posted by digamma

This won't have the same flair the +5, +5, +5, oh fuck demonstration, but I'll give it a shot.

Team: Off Week
Penn State: 1
Iowa: 2
Indiana: 3
Minnesota: 4
Michigan: 5
Illinois: 6
Purdue: 7
Northwestern: 8
Michigan State: 9
Ohio State: 10
Wisconsin: OH FUCK

Hope this is a joke. There are like 14-15 weeks in a college football season, you understand this correct?

[panerd]

Here is a simple demonstration for a three team league...

A vs B
C vs some outside team

A vs C
B vs some outside team

B vs C
A vs some outside team

[Passacaglia]

Originally Posted by panerd

Here is a simple demonstration for a three team league...

A vs B
C vs some outside team

A vs C
B vs some outside team

B vs C
A vs some outside team

That's 3 teams playing 2 in-conference games. The issue here is that you can't have an odd number of teams play an odd number of in-conference games.

[panerd]

Originally Posted by Passacaglia

That's 3 teams playing 2 in-conference games. The issue here is that you can't have an odd number of teams play an odd number of in-conference games.

Why the hell would 11 teams play 9 games like he says? They would obviously play 10. His theory is wrong no matter what but even his odd completely wrong mathematical analysis doesn't have the correct set-up.

[Passacaglia]

Originally Posted by panerd

Why the hell would 11 teams play 9 games like he says? They would obviously play 10. His theory is wrong no matter what but even his odd completely wrong mathematical analysis doesn't have the correct set-up.

Because that's what Post #6 -- the thing we are talking about -- suggests?

[panerd]

Originally Posted by Passacaglia

Because that's what Post #6 -- the thing we are talking about -- suggests?

Okay. But it seems like diagamma's post doesn't explain what you guys are saying then.

[Passacaglia]

Originally Posted by panerd

Okay. But it seems like diagamma's post doesn't explain what you guys are saying then.

Yeah, he's just trying to be cute. I think dacman's post does a very good job, though.

[Solecismic]

Why not play 10 conference games each season?

Michigan is playing Delaware State this season, and "hopes" to grab UMass for next season.

Seems like an opportunity - schedule one top-notch opponent and one local mid-major. The fans are happy, the players are getting more time against better competition.

I really thought the Big Ten would have added a 12th team by now, though. Paterno is probably thinking Pittsburgh or Syracuse. Quality academic institutions, and more natural rivals.

I wonder if Penn State was promised a 12th team when it agreed to join.

The way the BCS works, the Big Ten needs a championship game. Unfortunately, how to do that without screwing up the Michigan/Ohio State season-ender is very difficult.

[Passacaglia]

That said, there's a point left unsaid in digamma's post. Sure, there's 14-15 weeks in the college football season, so you can spread it out if you want, but how are you going to do it? Keep in mind that each week needs to have an odd number of teams not playing, and every team needs to have the same number of weeks off.

[Passacaglia]

Originally Posted by Solecismic

Why not play 10 conference games each season?

Michigan is playing Delaware State this season, and "hopes" to grab UMass for next season.

Seems like an opportunity - schedule one top-notch opponent and one local mid-major. The fans are happy, the players are getting more time against better competition.

I really thought the Big Ten would have added a 12th team by now, though. Paterno is probably thinking Pittsburgh or Syracuse. Quality academic institutions, and more natural rivals.

I wonder if Penn State was promised a 12th team when it agreed to join.

The way the BCS works, the Big Ten needs a championship game. Unfortunately, how to do that without screwing up the Michigan/Ohio State season-ender is very difficult.

So would Michigan play 7 home games when they play ND at home, and only 6 when they play in South Bend? I don't know how well that's going to go over, even if it means they don't have crap games no one wants to go to.

How would a championship game help the Big Ten? It seems like in the current incarnation of the Big Ten, it would just give Ohio State another chance to lose out on the national title game.

[panerd]

Originally Posted by Solecismic

Why not play 10 conference games each season?

Michigan is playing Delaware State this season, and "hopes" to grab UMass for next season.

Seems like an opportunity - schedule one top-notch opponent and one local mid-major. The fans are happy, the players are getting more time against better competition.

I really thought the Big Ten would have added a 12th team by now, though. Paterno is probably thinking Pittsburgh or Syracuse. Quality academic institutions, and more natural rivals.

I wonder if Penn State was promised a 12th team when it agreed to join.

The way the BCS works, the Big Ten needs a championship game. Unfortunately, how to do that without screwing up the Michigan/Ohio State season-ender is very difficult.

But what Paterno is saying to add a 12th team so there are divisions. Making the big 10 like the big 12 or SEC where you play your division every year but rotate vs the other division. Which creates years like KU had two years ago where the only quality conference opponents they played were and Mizzou (who they lost too) and they were that close to being in the national title game. This would make OSU and Michigan unbalance the schedule even more (which I can only assume would place the two in the same division) Which brings up an interesting question, how would you split the divisions. They could never go geographic could they? Look at the East football potential.

WEST
WISC
ILL
IU
IOWA
PURDUE
MINN

EAST
UM
MSU
OSU
NWSTRN
PURDUE
New Team

[Passacaglia]

I think you want Penn State in the East, not Purdue.


It's always been Notre Dame or no one for the Big Ten -
Michigan State Spartans Sports: News, Blogs, Photos, Audio, Schedule & Stats - MLive.com

I won't post the whole text of that article, just the relevant part:

My plan has long been to divide the teams along geographical lines.

The Duffy-Bo Division would consist of: Michigan, Michigan State, Penn State, Minnesota, Wisconsin and Northwestern.

The Knute-Woody Division would be made up of: Ohio State, Notre Dame, Indiana, Purdue, Iowa and Illinois.

I guess he's going for north-south, but that doesn't seem very natural.

[tarcone]

Originally Posted by panerd

But what Paterno is saying to add a 12th team so there are divisions. Making the big 10 like the big 12 or SEC where you play your division every year but rotate vs the other division. Which creates years like KU had two years ago where the only quality conference opponents they played were and Mizzou (who they lost too) and they were that close to being in the national title game. This would make OSU and Michigan unbalance the schedule even more (which I can only assume would place the two in the same division) Which brings up an interesting question, how would you split the divisions. They could never go geographic could they? Look at the East football potential.

WEST
WISC
ILL
IU
IOWA
PURDUE
MINN

EAST
UM
MSU
OSU
NWSTRN
PURDUE
New Team

Poor Purdue

[Passacaglia]

If he is trying to due north-south, he'd have to switch Penn State and Iowa. Also, those are really stupid division names. Basically, this looks more like "geographical lines that make sure Michigan and Ohio State aren't in the same division" more than anything else.

[kingnebwsu]

Big Ten expansion in football is really interesting to me. I'm a huge OSU fan, so to me (and many other arrogant/over-confident OSU/Michigan fans), I think the Big Ten championship should come down to the OSU/Michigan game every year. As an Ohio State fan, I think that's how it should be. I bet most OSU/Michigan fans feel the same way. I know there are many other solid programs in the conference, but meh.

If the conference was split into two divisions and OSU played Michigan in the last week of the regular season...and then again 1 or 2 weeks later in the conference championship game, then that would suck. Realistically/based on history, this would happen at least once every three or four years. Based on this alone, I think I am currently against expansion. Though I understand/have accepted the fact that the Big Ten isn't consistently relevant to the national championship picture. OSU may have been there a few times recently, but nobody respects them. I wish the team would have come in to the Florida game ready to play...then I think a lot of that disrespect wouldn't be there.

At least OSU has scheduled USC in back to back years to "unjustly" avoid getting into the championship game.

[Solecismic]

I think Michigan and Ohio state would rather secede from the Big Ten than give up The Game.

If divisions were created, they would have to be in the same division, and thus never meet for the conference title.

It would a bit odd if they did what the ACC does with Florida State and Miami - who play each year but can also play in the conference championship. Because that game must be the final one of the regular season.

[Wolfpack]

Originally Posted by Solecismic

I think Michigan and Ohio state would rather secede from the Big Ten than give up The Game.

If divisions were created, they would have to be in the same division, and thus never meet for the conference title.

It would a bit odd if they did what the ACC does with Florida State and Miami - who play each year but can also play in the conference championship. Because that game must be the final one of the regular season.

Well, in Miami and FSU's case, it was because Miami and FSU wanted it that way. The expectations were that FSU and Miami would be typically challenging for the ACC title every year and neither team wanted a loss to the other do heavy damage to their conference and national title aspirations. They still wanted the rivalry game, but they didn't want the loss costing a BCS berth since if they were in the same division, it would effectively have eliminated the loser, whereas if they were in separate divisions, the loser still had a chance by way of the ACC title game of making it back into the BCS. So the ACC actually had to work with those wishes, thus the lack of geographic continuity to the divisions. At least they did a pretty good job of structuring the divisions and the fixed cross-over games to preserve the best rivalry matchups in the league.

Of course, in hindsight, kowtowing to FSU and Miami led to some lamentable decisions: that FSU and Miami play Labor Day weekend to start the year, and none of those games were Instant Classics (they were generally panned as lousy games, even) and, worse yet, the ACC putting the title game in Jacksonville and then (when Jax had horrid attendance figures) Tampa. Only the FSU-VT game in the first year ever amounted to anything attendance-wise and with the ACC being probably the most parity-driven league in the BCS, getting FSU or Miami into the championship game is not something that may happen on an annual basis. I expect that the ACC championship game will end up either as a permanent game in Charlotte or a split between Charlotte and a Florida location or go to campus sites (i.e. better team's home field) after the current deal runs out in 2011. It won't permanently be in Florida after what's happened in the first few years.

[Kodos]

I suppose Michigan-OSU wouldn't agree to moving their annual game up to midseason?

[Matthean]

Originally Posted by Kodos

I suppose Michigan-OSU wouldn't agree to moving their annual game up to midseason?

(checks temperature in Hell)

[Solecismic]

Originally Posted by Kodos

I suppose Michigan-OSU wouldn't agree to moving their annual game up to midseason?

It's been the week before Thanksgiving my entire life.

I think they'd be in the same division if the conference goes to a championship game. It's more a natural to divide East and West from a travel perspective.

As far as invitations, It's snobby, but the Big Ten is obsessive about academics. The university presidents would never accept a school without an international reputation.

From the Academic Ranking of World Universities, 2008:

Wisconsin 17, Michigan 21, Illinois 26, Minnesota 28, Northwestern 30, Penn State 42, Ohio State 62, Purdue 65, Michigan State 83, Indiana 92, Iowa 101-150 (97 in 2007).

Only the Ivy League is as particular (and takes it to another level). And these are world rankings. So I think a school would need to appear in the top 200 to receive serious consideration.

Geographically, these are candidates: Pittsburgh 52, Iowa State 152-200, Cincinnati 152-200, Nebraska 152-200, Kansas 201-302, Kentucky 201-302, Missouri 201-302, Notre Dame 201-302.

Kentucky is SEC, and would have no reason to ever move. Notre Dame has already turned them down. Can't see Nebraska or Kansas even remotely considering a move from the Big 12, and probably not Missouri. Iowa State might, with a natural rival in the Big Ten.

Cincinnati and Pitt are intriguing, and would bring in major media markets. Syracuse is also solid, but doesn't have the international reputation.

I think Pitt should be as coveted as Notre Dame. I'd rank Iowa State, Cincinnati, Missouri and Syracuse pretty much equal. After that, I don't see any point to expansion. Elevating a MAC school is not going to happen. Those are all regional universities.

[Julio Riddols]

if they did do 12 teams, I would love to see the conference renamed "The Dirty Dozen".

[Dr. Sak]

Originally Posted by panerd

Why the hell would 11 teams play 9 games like he says? They would obviously play 10. His theory is wrong no matter what but even his odd completely wrong mathematical analysis doesn't have the correct set-up.

Yeah I figured I messed up about 10 minutes after I posted it, but was too lazy to come downstairs and edit the post.

You aren't going to find teams wanting to play 10 conference games because some of the bigger schools want to use at least 3 OOC games for 3 additional home games for revenue.

[Swaggs]

Pitt and Cincinnati do not really add any additional markets, as Penn State and Ohio State already have as much of (or more) a foothold in those areas.

I think Rutgers or Missouri make the most sense from a market standpoint (assuming that ND has no interest whatsoever), although I think the assumption that Rutgers will deliver the New York market may be a bit overblown.

[Dr. Sak]

Originally Posted by Swaggs

Pitt and Cincinnati do not really add any additional markets, as Penn State and Ohio State already have as much of (or more) a foothold in those areas.

And who is really to say Pitt, Cincinnati or even Syracuse would want to leave the Big East. Two of those schools are big into basketball so why would they want to leave, arguably the best basketball conference in the country?

[Logan]

The Big 10 should avoid Pitt - their lack of traveling fans for bowl games (when they make one) has hurt the Big East.

[Passacaglia]

Originally Posted by Solecismic

It's been the week before Thanksgiving my entire life.

Nit picking here, but it's been the weekend after Thanksgiving a few times, and starting next year with the extra week off, it will be the weekend after Thanksgiving for the next three years at least.

[Matthean]

Originally Posted by Dr. Sak

And who is really to say Pitt, Cincinnati or even Syracuse would want to leave the Big East. Two of those schools are big into basketball so why would they want to leave, arguably the best basketball conference in the country?

It's easier to win the conference title in basketball since MSU is the only real consistent standout team and that's vastly because Izzo is there now. It's not like winning the conference title in football would be that difficult either at this point in time. If Kelly continues to build up Cincinnati, I highly doubt OSU fans want to see another school from Ohio being the Big Ten champ.

[Passacaglia]

How about DePaul? They fit geographically, and probably academically. Okay, yeah, so they don't have a football team at the moment, but I'm sure they could scrounge something together if they joined. But hey, it's not like the new team has to be competitive -- bringing in a doormat should be fine, and in fact, most Big Ten fans would probably prefer that over a new team coming in and kicking everyone's butt.

[Dr. Sak]

I have no knowledge of this but pure speculation, but I really think when the Big Ten got Penn State to join, they thought that Notre Dame would not be far behind. Penn State and Notre Dame were one of the last few teams left (powerhouses) as Independents. So by taking one, I think they thought the other would struggle for a bit then follow into the Big Ten.

But as I stated earlier, the Big East threw Notre Dame a big bone, and they were able to work out their own deal with the BCS. So all of that threw a huge wrench in the plans to get a 12th team.

[Logan]

Originally Posted by Passacaglia

How about DePaul? They fit geographically, and probably academically. Okay, yeah, so they don't have a football team at the moment, but I'm sure they could scrounge something together if they joined. But hey, it's not like the new team has to be competitive -- bringing in a doormat should be fine, and in fact, most Big Ten fans would probably prefer that over a new team coming in and kicking everyone's butt.

The 12th team needs to bring something to the table economically for it to be worth it for the 11 teams to give up that piece of the pie.

[Passacaglia]

Originally Posted by Logan

The 12th team needs to bring something to the table economically for it to be worth it for the 11 teams to give up that piece of the pie.

Oh, well if that's the case, then I think the article quoted in post 31 has it right -- Notre Dame is your only option.