(05-21-2013 09:16 AM)ohio1317 Wrote:  

(05-21-2013 08:16 AM)CommuterBob Wrote:  

(05-20-2013 05:38 PM)ohio1317 Wrote:  

(05-20-2013 09:11 AM)DexterDevil Wrote:  I still like Kansas and Mizzou as 15 and 16, and that is what I will want regardless of who they actually add.

If we had to go to 16 (emphasis on had), I'd agree there. We've expanded out east, now back to the Midwestern roots. That said, both Kansas and Missouri strike me as a 2nd team to go along with a main one if a spot was needed (which it probably wouldn't be). That said...

(05-20-2013 09:11 AM)PIRATE TERP Wrote:  I kinda believe if the BIG does do something they will try to keep it even and go one East and one West ... maybe Virginia and Kansas ... something similar etc

I hope that if they do go to 16, they think of the alignment before adding (unlike almost every expansion in every conference so far). Two fixed divisions does not work at 16 (you're two conferences at that point connected by a conference championship; the SEC and ACC are pretty much already there even at 14 given their set-ups). Pods (rotating divisions) would have to be used. That would mean setting things up so you can get 4 groups of 4 with a minimum number of locked games outside of pods.

I think the move to 16 would necessitate a four division setup and a change to the NCAA rules to allow conference semifinals. The 9-game schedule sets up nicely for that - 3 games vs your own division, play one entire other division on rotation (4 games), and play one team from each of the remaining two divisions (could do this many ways, but I like making that arrangement based on how they finished the previous season [i.e. 1st place teams play each other, 2nd place teams play each other, etc.]. If the B1G (and SEC) were to ask for that rule change, you can bet it would go through.

I think a rule change is going to be a lot harder than most guess. Multiple conferences asked for the rules to change to allow CCG without 12 teams, including several power conferences. All were rejected.

Personally, I hope it would be rejected. I like the regular season deciding things and a 4 team conference playoff would diminish that. Beyond that, it would just make expansion easier again (and I'd like it to be very hard to limit it).

The regular season will decide division winners, just like with the NFL. There is plenty of meaning in that. Where most fans are wrong is forgetting that these teams are not really playing like their true selves till later in the season. The New York Giants proved that as a Professional team by winning the Super Bowl after barely going .500 for the season. Watching the four teams that legitimately win their divisions wouldn't be negating the regular season, it would be highlighting the regular season.

The Big Ten Basketball Tournament negates the regular season because damn near the entire conference gets to go to the tourney. When you have only a quarter of the conference going to the tournament, that makes the regular season even more important.

(05-21-2013 04:01 PM)He1nousOne Wrote:  The Big Ten Basketball Tournament negates the regular season because damn near the entire conference gets to go to the tourney. When you have only a quarter of the conference going to the tournament, that makes the regular season even more important.

Its also seeding. Seed the top two regular season teams into the semi-finals, as the MAC does, and all of a sudden getting a top two spot becomes real important.

(05-18-2013 05:18 PM)GreenFreakUAB Wrote:  

(05-18-2013 11:22 AM)SeaBlue Wrote:  A little outside the box here: Florida and Florida State.

...would be interesting for sure, but...I think if FSU jumps anywhere, it would be the SEC...I think the BigXII deal may still have a chance, but the GoR is the hindrance now... somehow I think that the networks could 'circumvent' that if it somehow was a beneficial move for all parties...

I know Miami has lost a lot of 'mojo', but they would seem to be an interesting choice for someone to 'gain entry' into the Florida recruiting grounds...

SEC fans outside of UF would love to have FSU. They fit in every significant way. The problem is their brand alone does not make up for doubling up on the same TV market. Imagine if Michigan State was in the ACC but wanted in the Big 10. I would bet that the Big 10 would not be able to convince the schools that adding them would be a good choice financially. FSU and Michigan State are comparable in many ways; one just had the benefit of joining their best cultural fit conference long before TV dollars made the decision.

My two cents... if it becomes apparent that the Big 12 and ACC will stick together for the foreseeable future, I think the B1G would be served well to add UCONN and then have serious talks with the University of Toronto about adding NCAA athletics. They are a top 20 international university, command not just a major international city but the entirety of Ontario, and have plenty of athletes to support their teams and even give other B1G schools a new recruiting ground, especially in basketball. If you want outside the box, there it is. I think the PAC should do the same with the University of British Columbia, by the way (located in Vancouver).

Barring any constraints it'd have to be ND and Texas, right?

Considering the ACC and the B12 looks like they are bound together for the time being, I'm not sure what incentive there is for the B1G to expand? UConn? Not buying into that. They are a better fit for the ACC, in my opinion (solid football and very strong bball).

I'd be happy with any combination of UNC, UVA, UK, or Mizzou.

Maybe this is just the Rutgers fan in me talking, but I'd be happy to see some stability in college athletics for the next decade or two. I'd have figured most people outside of Stoors and Cincinnati would agree.

(05-23-2013 09:57 AM)chrisRU Wrote:  Barring any constraints it'd have to be ND and Texas, right?

Considering the ACC and the B12 looks like they are bound together for the time being, I'm not sure what incentive there is for the B1G to expand? UConn? Not buying into that. They are a better fit for the ACC, in my opinion (solid football and very strong bball).

I'd be happy with any combination of UNC, UVA, UK, or Mizzou.

Maybe this is just the Rutgers fan in me talking, but I'd be happy to see some stability in college athletics for the next decade or two. I'd have figured most people outside of Stoors and Cincinnati would agree.

UVA and UConn wouldn't be horrible, but the Huskies need to improve their academics. They have a nice rivalry with Rutgers that would be awesome to continue.

There are already Writers going on about how it is going to be very hard for the ACC to actually achieve the goal of having it's own Network. The cost of buying up all their individual rights that they have sold of to multiple entities would be extremely costly. ESPN just did that for the SEC, does anyone think they are going to be able to dig deep and do that for the ACC when Big Papa Disney is forcing ESPN to hand out pink slips?

The Big Ten should just hold tight.

The best two adds at the moment are nobody and their brother.

The best two adds in a decade's time, when Big Ten realignment speculation picks up again with the ripening of the Big12 GOR will either be the same, or two schools that have become available because of events that have taken place between now and then. My crystal ball being broken, I don't know what those events will be, so I don't know what those schools will be.

If Texas still wants to hold the Big12 together, and FSU has achieved AAU status, the Big Ten might pass on the Big12 and wait for the ACC GOR to ripen.

(05-25-2013 09:29 AM)BruceMcF Wrote:  The best two adds at the moment are nobody and their brother.

The best two adds in a decade's time, when Big Ten realignment speculation picks up again with the ripening of the Big12 GOR will either be the same, or two schools that have become available because of events that have taken place between now and then. My crystal ball being broken, I don't know what those events will be, so I don't know what those schools will be.

If Texas still wants to hold the Big12 together, and FSU has achieved AAU status, the Big Ten might pass on the Big12 and wait for the ACC GOR to ripen.

I don't see FSU and Texas in the B1G.

I think the Pac-16 finally comes to fruition. Texas, Tech, OU, OSU. (KU and KSU if going to 18)

The B1G winds up with UVA and UNC. (Duke and GT if going to 18)

The SEC winds up with VT and NC St. (WVU and FSU if going to 18)

(05-21-2013 04:01 PM)He1nousOne Wrote:  The regular season will decide division winners, just like with the NFL. There is plenty of meaning in that. Where most fans are wrong is forgetting that these teams are not really playing like their true selves till later in the season. The New York Giants proved that as a Professional team by winning the Super Bowl after barely going .500 for the season. Watching the four teams that legitimately win their divisions wouldn't be negating the regular season, it would be highlighting the regular season.

Disagree here. The mark of greatness is being good the whole way through. I get why the NFL and others do things the way they do, but what has made college football so big is how, unlike in so many other sports, games matter throughout the season. If finishing hot is given too much weight (as most sports do give it), then the early season is a lot less interesting.

(05-21-2013 04:01 PM)He1nousOne Wrote:  The Big Ten Basketball Tournament negates the regular season because damn near the entire conference gets to go to the tourney. When you have only a quarter of the conference going to the tournament, that makes the regular season even more important.

The Big Ten Tournament doesn't determine the Big Ten champion though only the Big Ten Tournament Champion. If it determined the actual champion, I honestly probably wouldn't watch more than an Ohio State game or two until March while now I start watching Big Ten basketball in December. Since the season determines the champ though, I watch a lot more basketball. This is why I was very against divisions in basketball.

(05-25-2013 10:46 PM)ohio1317 Wrote:  The Big Ten Tournament doesn't determine the Big Ten champion though only the Big Ten Tournament Champion.

On the other hand, it does determine the NCAA AQ bid, so those who are mostly "March Madness" fans can just skip the regular season, look up a bracketology site to see the expected NCAA spots prior to the tournament, and then follow the Big Ten tournament to watch for teams following through on expectations or upsetting them.

Quote: If it determined the actual champion, I honestly probably wouldn't watch more than an Ohio State game or two until March while now I start watching Big Ten basketball in December. Since the season determines the champ though, I watch a lot more basketball. This is why I was very against divisions in basketball.

While the official Big Ten championship only earns a guarantee of an NIT spot in the unlikely event that the champion did not gain an NCAA bid.

(05-26-2013 01:59 PM)BruceMcF Wrote:  

(05-25-2013 10:46 PM)ohio1317 Wrote:  The Big Ten Tournament doesn't determine the Big Ten champion though only the Big Ten Tournament Champion.

On the other hand, it does determine the NCAA AQ bid, so those who are mostly "March Madness" fans can just skip the regular season, look up a bracketology site to see the expected NCAA spots prior to the tournament, and then follow the Big Ten tournament to watch for teams following through on expectations or upsetting them.

Quote: If it determined the actual champion, I honestly probably wouldn't watch more than an Ohio State game or two until March while now I start watching Big Ten basketball in December. Since the season determines the champ though, I watch a lot more basketball. This is why I was very against divisions in basketball.

While the official Big Ten championship only earns a guarantee of an NIT spot in the unlikely event that the champion did not gain an NCAA bid.

True one what determines everything for the NCAA Tournament, but if your team is relying on the Big Ten Tournament to get into the NCAA, it's very unlikely to do anything there anyway. I'm not saying the Big Ten Tournament isn't a fun event. The regular season race is what gets me watching and following the sport from late December on.

I know I'm kind of an odd ball with it though. I'd take a regular season Big Ten title over anything less than a Final Four. Heck, this year, I'm not sure I wouldn't have taken 2 more conference wins (for an outright Big Ten title) over a win vs. Wichita State (for a Final Four).

(05-31-2013 10:50 AM)ohio1317 Wrote:  The regular season race is what gets me watching and following the sport from late December on. ...

It goes without saying that the regular season race is a part of what gets people watching who are watching in December, but watching in December puts you in the minority of people watching in March.

In response to the OP... Louisville and Kentucky :)

(05-31-2013 03:52 PM)bigblueblindness Wrote:  In response to the OP... Louisville and Kentucky :)

Ouch. If those are the best two, that sure makes a powerful argument for staying at 14.

if it includes any team within our region of the eastern half of the US + AAU requirement, then Texas and Florida. If we are to exclude the conference on our level influence-wise, then Texas and North Carolina.

(05-31-2013 08:44 PM)BruceMcF Wrote:  

(05-31-2013 03:52 PM)bigblueblindness Wrote:  In response to the OP... Louisville and Kentucky :)

Ouch. If those are the best two, that sure makes a powerful argument for staying at 14.

Just joking... making fun of Gordon Gee's recent comments.

(05-31-2013 11:51 AM)BruceMcF Wrote:  

(05-31-2013 10:50 AM)ohio1317 Wrote:  The regular season race is what gets me watching and following the sport from late December on. ...

It goes without saying that the regular season race is a part of what gets people watching who are watching in December, but watching in December puts you in the minority of people watching in March.

No doubt more watch it in March. The official "Big Ten Champs" has always been in the regular season though and I think that getting attention throughout is a big reason to keep it that way. The Big Ten Tournament isn't diminished by having the champs put a Big Ten Tournament Champs banner instead of Big Ten champs.