I think the big 10 if it ever started a hockey league should add some affiliates like miami(oh) and ND if they aren't in the big 10 + maybe Northern/western Michigan. The school to watch is BC, i don't like them in the big 10 at all but if nd demands it for membership does the big 10 follow the acc expansion plan with Syracuse and bc to go along with nd + does BC put their hockey team in the big 10...yuck, BC hockey belongs in the east and BC is a horrible fit for the big 10, i would under no circumstance invite BC into the big 10.

(04-14-2010 11:44 AM)bluesox Wrote:  The miami(oh) AD probably just wants to raise $ + he played for BO at UM so he has an interest in the subject...as for numbers, i think 12 is the best but 14 works with a 6-1-1 format. I don't think 16 works without going to 10 conf games but maybe that's happens with 14 + i don't want to spend the time figuring out how the numbers works with schedule, ie the reason MLB has 16 in one league and 14 in the other is they would need to play a cross over game every day to even the divisions- i think. OF course, i'd like to see MLB go to geographic divisions but that's another subject that probably will never happen.

No no no, MLB is setup perfectly as is. I like having the two different leagues with the two different styles of play.

Also does anyone want to see a division of BoSox, Yanks, Mets, Phillies and Blue Jays? The 3 richest teams in baseball in one division sounds bad to me particularly if my Mets ever get their act together. The Phillies aren't far behind those first 3 either.

As for a 14 team conference screw divisions. Just do 5 permanent rivals, 1/2 of the other 8 in year 1 and the other half in year 2. Assume its Pitt, Rutgers and ND. ND would have Pitt, Michigan, Purdue, Michigan State and Penn State as its likely permanent rivals. Michigan gets Notre Dame, Michigan State, Ohio State, Wisconsin and Minnesota. Penn State gets Notre Dame, Ohio State, Rutgers, Pitt and Michigan State. Michigan State gets Penn State, Notre Dame, Michigan, Indiana and Rutgers. So forth and so on.

They may try to get Miami back as the Florida "comment" and if that doesn't work they will look to CUSA. I would think that if Jurich is being that proactive he may try to push for the 10-12 number. If the Big 10 goes to 12, 14 or 16 then all BCS conferences will have to move to 12 at least. Something will be out of the bag soon.

(04-14-2010 10:26 AM)Frank the Tank Wrote:  Not surprised about the lack of a mention of Mizzou - I've said it before and I'll say it again, they are the most consistently overrated expansion candidate for the Big Ten. Their academics are arguably slightly worse than Nebraska (who is a true national football power). In terms of demographics, Illinois already delivers the St. Louis market to the Big Ten, so they'd really only be adding the Kansas City market (which would be delivered better by Kansas, a true national basketball power).

Not that I disagree about the lack of interest in Missouri. But do people in St. Louis really give a sh1t about Illinois?? That's like saying people in Cincinnati love watching UK, or people in Louisville watch IU. Those border state schools end up on TV in those markets, but they don't come remotely close to "delivering" the market. Does Arkansas deliver the Memphis TV market?

(04-14-2010 11:46 AM)BullsFanatic Wrote:  The way I read it, they will look to Florida (UCF) if they lose one team, and then CUSA (Memphis/ECU) if they lose additional teams. It's beginning to look like a foregone conclusion that we will lose one team (whether it be Notre Dame or a football member).

Although Memphis is a popular choice on here, I'm not sure they are a lock even if we were to lose two teams. Consider the following scenario:

Big Ten adds Notre Dame or Rutgers, stops at 12. Pac 10 adds Colorado and Utah, Big 12 responds by adding Louisville. At that point, the Big East is down two teams. UCF is in, but the second spot is much harder with Louisville leaving. Memphis has the basketball edge, but I think that ECU would have to be given the football edge. If Louisville leaves, Memphis is an even greater outlier in regards to geography, and they've lost their greatest supporter and potential rival. West Virginia is probably partial to East Carolina, and I'm guessing a few others are as well. If Louisville stays, I think the second choice is Memphis, but if the Cardinals are gone, I think it opens things up.

It is also possible Jurich meant "look to CUSA" to mean, "form a new conference with the CUSA East schools", in the event that the doomsday scenario of three or more schools leaving the conference occurs.

IF UL was to go to the Big 12, most likely another "eastern" school would go with them. I think it would be Memphis or Cincinnati (I think this time Memphis would get the geographical nod).

I also think basketball will be a more important consideration if the BE splits, and this would be a huge plus for Memphis. I think Memphis just might be a stronger candidate than most might believe (based on the last go around). Money and committment is in place and our lobbyist have been working for inclusion for at least a couple of years.

I'm glad Jurich is at least talking about it. He's more of a "commisioner" than our commisioner.

I'll go off topic:
AL
Atlantic
NY Yanks
Boston
Tampa Bay
Flordia

East
NY Mets
Philadelphia
Washington
Baltimore
Atlanta

Central
Toronto
Detroit
Cleveland
Cincy
Pitt

NL
Pacific
LA Dodgers
LA Angles
San Fran
oakland
San Diego
Seattle

West
Texas
Houston
Arizona
Colorado
Minnesota

Central
Chicago Cubs
Chicago White Sox
Milwaukee
St. Louis
Kansas City

DH is eliminated...or maybe put Seattle in the west and Minnesota in either a 6 team west or central + i'm not sure schedule wise but maybe it could be a 15/15 leagues in which case i would split up the chicago teams, put the white sox in the al central with toronto going into the atlantic.

(04-14-2010 12:18 PM)bluesox Wrote:  I'll go off topic:
AL
Atlantic
NY Yanks
Boston
Tampa Bay
Flordia

East
NY Mets
Philadelphia
Washington
Baltimore
Atlanta

Central
Toronto
Detroit
Cleveland
Cincy
Pitt

NL
Pacific
LA Dodgers
LA Angles
San Fran
oakland
San Diego
Seattle

West
Texas
Houston
Arizonia
Colorado
Minnesota

Central
Chicago Cubs
Chicago White Sox
Milwaukee
St. Louis
Kansas City

DH is eliminated

If you did it like that it would be pretty good I'll concede that to you. Alright back to our topic here. Definitely agree with moving Seattle to the West and Minnesota to the Central. That would make the most sense.

(04-14-2010 12:12 PM)JunkYardCard Wrote:  

(04-14-2010 10:26 AM)Frank the Tank Wrote:  Not surprised about the lack of a mention of Mizzou - I've said it before and I'll say it again, they are the most consistently overrated expansion candidate for the Big Ten. Their academics are arguably slightly worse than Nebraska (who is a true national football power). In terms of demographics, Illinois already delivers the St. Louis market to the Big Ten, so they'd really only be adding the Kansas City market (which would be delivered better by Kansas, a true national basketball power).

Not that I disagree about the lack of interest in Missouri. But do people in St. Louis really give a sh1t about Illinois?? That's like saying people in Cincinnati love watching UK, or people in Louisville watch IU. Those border state schools end up on TV in those markets, but they don't come remotely close to "delivering" the market. Does Arkansas deliver the Memphis TV market?

Absolutely. There's enough interest to get the Big Ten Network onto basic cable in St. Louis and that's really the standard we're looking at in terms of "delivering" a market for the Big Ten. Mizzou is the overall more popular school in the St. Louis area, but it's more like a 60/40 split with Illinois. Note that Mizzou and Illinois play neutral site basketball and football games in St. Louis, so at least the schools think of it as neutral territory. This isn't like the Louisville (UK and Louisville) or Cincinnati (OSU and Cincy) markets, which each clearly have at least 2 true home state teams of interest. In contrast, Illinois is considered to be a "home" team in St. Louis and it's covered by the local media as such where it justifies dedicated beat writers.

(04-14-2010 12:18 PM)BJUnklFkr Wrote:  I'm glad Jurich is at least talking about it. He's more of a "commisioner" than our commisioner.

Bingo. Who do you think would be the leading candidate as the comish of the new conference?

(04-14-2010 11:16 AM)brista21 Wrote:  

(04-14-2010 11:13 AM)Knights_of_UCF Wrote:  

(04-14-2010 11:01 AM)mpurdy22 Wrote:  I'm doubting it is just Notre Dame-that would cause the least conference shuffling. I believe it involve more than Notre Dame simply because our (Miami OH) AD and Assistant AD are hosting a breakfast on April 20th in Cincinnati which includes a speaking engangement and one of the topics is the Big Ten expansion and what that means to Miami. If only Notre Dame was the one going to the Big Ten, that wouldn't have any affect on Miami whatsover in my opinion.

Miami (OH) is a lock for the big 10. Write it down!

I hope you're being sarcastic, because he wasn't implying that. Obviously if the Big East lose 2 or 3 or 4 teams there will be a massive shift in how the college football landscape looks especially east of the Rockies.

My point exactly. Are we marketing ourselves to C-USA or does this only affect our hockey program etc...I am curious to what the AD means. What does he know. Has the Big Ten already made their decision??

(04-14-2010 12:29 PM)Frank the Tank Wrote:  

(04-14-2010 12:12 PM)JunkYardCard Wrote:  But do people in St. Louis really give a sh1t about Illinois??

Absolutely. There's enough interest to get the Big Ten Network onto basic cable in St. Louis and that's really the standard we're looking at in terms of "delivering" a market for the Big Ten. Mizzou is the overall more popular school in the St. Louis area, but it's more like a 60/40 split with Illinois. Note that Mizzou and Illinois play neutral site basketball and football games in St. Louis, so at least the schools think of it as neutral territory. This isn't like the Louisville (UK and Louisville) or Cincinnati (OSU and Cincy) markets, which each clearly have at least 2 true home state teams of interest. In contrast, Illinois is considered to be a "home" team in St. Louis and it's covered by the local media as such where it justifies dedicated beat writers.

I'll be damned. From 300 to 400 miles away, it sounds crazy. But you'd know better than me.

(04-14-2010 12:18 PM)BJUnklFkr Wrote:  I'm glad Jurich is at least talking about it. He's more of a "commisioner" than our commisioner.

Commissioners would be wise to follow the adage: "Those that know aren't talking, and those that talk don't know."

2 divisions, Primary cross-over rival for all of the below formats. Out of Conference=(OOC)

Football Schedule with 12 conference teams:
(regular opposite division teams 2 per year, one home, one away. Then following year rotate.) Then switch to 2 other teams and do the same. There will be an odd number though, as 1 team will be opposite division rival and the rotation will only run through 5 teams.

1- OOC (FCS)
2- OOC (Lower level BCS)
3- OOC (Mid/High level BCS)
4- OOC (High Level BCS)
5- Opp. Div. (Rotate Home/Home, then switch to next 2 teams)
6- Opp. Div. (Rotate Home/Home, then switch to next 2 teams)
7- Opp. Div. Rival (Rotate Home/Home, Annually)
8- Divisional (Rotate Home/Home, Annually)
9- Divisional (Rotate Home/Home, Annually)
10- Divisional (Rotate Home/Home, Annually)
11- Divisional (Rotate Home/Home, Annually)
12- Divisional (Rotate Home/Home, Annually)
(13) Conference Championship Game
(14) Bowl Game

Football Schedule with 14 conference teams:
(regular opposite division teams 2 per year, one home, one away. Then following year rotate.) Then switch to 2 other teams and do the same. Now will be even number of 6 teams to rotate. (over 6 years will play every opp division team home/home)

1- OOC (FCS/Lower level BCS)
2- OOC (Lower/Mid level BCS)
3- OOC (Mid/High level BCS)
4- Opp. Div. (Rotate Home/Home, then switch to next 2 teams)
5- Opp. Div. (Rotate Home/Home, then switch to next 2 teams)
6- Opp. Div. Rival (Rotate Home/Home, Annually)
7- Divisional (Rotate Home/Home, Annually)
8- Divisional (Rotate Home/Home, Annually)
9- Divisional (Rotate Home/Home, Annually)
10- Divisional (Rotate Home/Home, Annually)
11- Divisional (Rotate Home/Home, Annually)
12- Divisional (Rotate Home/Home, Annually)
(13) Conference Championship Game
(14) Bowl Game

This format leaves you an odd number of conference games though. So you could add the extra Opp div. game, or take one away and rotate one team in that spot (taking 10 years to play all of the opp div teams home & away).

(04-14-2010 12:12 PM)JunkYardCard Wrote:  Not that I disagree about the lack of interest in Missouri. But do people in St. Louis really give a sh1t about Illinois?? That's like saying people in Cincinnati love watching UK, or people in Louisville watch IU. Those border state schools end up on TV in those markets, but they don't come remotely close to "delivering" the market. Does Arkansas deliver the Memphis TV market?

You'd be surprised, Junkyard.. here in St. Louis, the primary interest in terms of sports are

1) Mizzou
2) Illinois
3) St. Louis U.
4) Kansas

(makes life intolerable for us southern transplants in this city :) )

but yeah, the interest in Illinois is actually pretty decent on both sides of the Mississippi (don't forget, that there's "St. Louis" (MO) and "east St. Louis" (IL)

(04-14-2010 12:01 PM)Knights_of_UCF Wrote:  

(04-14-2010 11:11 AM)ecu92 Wrote:  The Big East taking UCF would be quite a diss to USF....as if they need another BCS school to recruit against in the state of Florida.

We already recruit the same players as them. Check out rivals sometime. A lot of their recruits have UCF offers and vice versa.

Yes, but recruiting against a BCS school is a little tougher than recruiting against a CUSA school. UCF would be a significantly tougher opponent on the recruiting trail without the stigma of being a non-bcs school....why would USF want that?

The Big 10 would be insane to take Missouri over Nebraska. The Huskers have a national profile...I'm in North Carolina, and I'll tune in to watch them play. Missouri....not so much.

I think the Big 10 would very smart to pickup Rutgers, Pitt, and Nebraska. Missouri would be a decent pick if they decided to go to a 16-team league.

(04-14-2010 01:04 PM)DFW HOYA Wrote:  Commissioners would be wise to follow the adage: "Those that know aren't talking, and those that talk don't know."

I'm going to guess that after the Big East falls apart Jurich becomes the football side commissioner. He seems to know more about the business than most of the commissioners out there (the Big 10 and SEC commissioners excluded).

(04-14-2010 09:26 AM)dgrace4cards Wrote:  

(04-14-2010 09:13 AM)brista21 Wrote:  Interesting he said that out in public like that.

Nothing to lose at this point somebody has to keep our schools fanbase momey donors informed since BE office isn't. Nothing to lose with schools either since previous posts show they are at odds

Until the Big 10 acts, nobody has a clue what's next. If they take Notre Dame and stop? Big whoop, but the Big 10 has failed to maximize B10 Net revenue. It's when you start talking 14 and 16 team models that it gets crazy.

Say they go to 14 or 16 and one of those schools is from the Big XII. The SEC might be tempted to exploit the opening to go after Texas and TAMU. If the Big 10 goes to 14 or 16 would the ACC feel like it needed to match numbers to remain competitive?

If the Big 10 takes 4 Big East schools and the ACC takes four just how the blue blazes do UCF, Memphis and ECU join a football conference that has no members?

Waaay too many moving parts to consider until the B10 acts.

(04-14-2010 01:20 PM)ecu92 Wrote:  

(04-14-2010 12:01 PM)Knights_of_UCF Wrote:  

(04-14-2010 11:11 AM)ecu92 Wrote:  The Big East taking UCF would be quite a diss to USF....as if they need another BCS school to recruit against in the state of Florida.

We already recruit the same players as them. Check out rivals sometime. A lot of their recruits have UCF offers and vice versa.

Yes, but recruiting against a BCS school is a little tougher than recruiting against a CUSA school. UCF would be a significantly tougher opponent on the recruiting trail without the stigma of being a non-bcs school....why would USF want that?

USF, or for that matter any BE school that recruits Florida can't worry about what/who UCF is recruiting. Personally, I feel selling UofL as an option isn't that difficult and I would hope USF and WVU would feel the same. UCF would win some recruiting battles and lose some. Can't be scared. The BE would need UCF to be the best program possible. Even if it comes at the expense of a few recruits.