http://sports.espn.go.com/ncf/news/story?id=4118848
Off the top of my head without a lot of thought here, but isn't the more natural move on a national scale to move Memphis to the Big 12 and move someone like Missouri to the Miniscule 11?
Quote from: Eye on April 30, 2009, 11:04:13 PM
Off the top of my head without a lot of thought here, but isn't the more natural move on a national scale to move Memphis to the Big 12 and move someone like Missouri to the Miniscule 11?
Football drives all of this, and Memphis doesn't have the football program to compete in the Big 12. They can't even compete in the CUSA. The Big 10 is only going to do this if the addition of another team, and the subsequent Big 10 Championship Game, adds more to the per team revenue of each school. Notre Dame would obviously do that. So would a school like Nebraska. I am not sure that Syracuse, Pitt, Missouri or Rutgers would, at least in the short-run.
But in the long-run, this would be good for the Big 10. But we are talking about a conference that didn't allow its non-champion to go to bowl games until the 70s and didn't pick up a conference basketball tournament until the 90s. To say that they move slowly where everyone else has gone before is an understatement.
Arkansas to Big 12, then Missouri to Big 10.....
Paterno is calling for those schools becuase he is a Northeastern guy. I am sure he would love to have one of those schools being a northeastern guy and it would also provide a natural geographic rivalry.
However, he is a or northeastern guy and PSU is a northeastern school I doubt to many Big 11 university presidents, Ad's or fans have any real interest in any of those mentioned schools. Missouri makes all the sense in the world. Even nebraska or Notre dame make way way way more sense than rutgers or Syracuse. Pitt possibly but not really a good fit.
As a resident of Missouri, the University of Missouri has no desire to move to the Big 10. Plus they have too big of a rival in the Big 12 (Kansas) to have a move to the Big 10 make sense.
I've lived in St. Louis for all my life besides the four years I spent at Marquette, and I've never heard a move to the Big 10 discussed once.
Plus doesn't Missouri play a too exciting brand of football and basketball to play in the Big 10? I mean their basketball team scores 80+ points a game.
Quote from: Kramerica on May 01, 2009, 08:40:43 AM
As a resident of Missouri, the University of Missouri has no desire to move to the Big 10. Plus they have too big of a rival in the Big 12 (Kansas) to have a move to the Big 10 make sense.
I've lived in St. Louis for all my life besides the four years I spent at Marquette, and I've never heard a move to the Big 10 discussed once.
Plus doesn't Missouri play a too exciting brand of football and basketball to play in the Big 10? I mean their basketball team scores 80+ points a game.
If you haven't heard it, then you really haven't been paying attention. Missouri to the Big Ten is a long standing and common discussion when conference realignment comes up, probably for decades. Missouri has had discussions with the Big 10 as recently as three years ago and openly campaigned for it back in 1999. Here's just a sampling of articles about it through the years.
http://www.collegeblitz.com/live/2006/smith/073107.html
http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m1208/is_8_223/ai_53980535/
I am not saying Missouri should or would go to the Big Ten. In fact to watch there basketball teams play and there football teams sans OSU and Michigan play is really hard. I think they are far behing the other BCS schools when it comes to basketball. They do a good job of recruitng the mIdwest but really dont play a brand of bball to recruit kids on a antional level to compete at the national title level. Seriosly apart form MSU and OSU when they had a Oden not big Ten teams can come close to waht the Uconns, Unc's Ucla's etc have as far as NBA talent and ability to compete for National titles. The lower level BE teams are still filled with NBA prospects while the lower level Big Ten teams are no where near that they are more like Hickory High on steroids.
Quote from: MR.HAYWARD on May 01, 2009, 09:02:32 AM
I am not saying Missouri should or would go to the Big Ten. In fact to watch there basketball teams play and there football teams sans OSU and Michigan play is really hard. I think they are far behing the other BCS schools when it comes to basketball. They do a good job of recruitng the mIdwest but really dont play a brand of bball to recruit kids on a antional level to compete at the national title level. Seriosly apart form MSU and OSU when they had a Oden not big Ten teams can come close to waht the Uconns, Unc's Ucla's etc have as far as NBA talent and ability to compete for National titles. The lower level BE teams are still filled with NBA prospects while the lower level Big Ten teams are no where near that they are more like Hickory High on steroids.
The Big Ten has had four of its teams play for the NCAA basketball championship in the past decade. Outside of the ACC, no other conference can make that claim. But more importantly for membership sake, the Big Ten is the second most lucrative conference in the country behind the SEC.
Frankly, I have felt for years that Pitt is a natural for the Big 10.
Here is an interesting article regarding the breakdown of NBA players.
http://www.rpiratings.com/NBA.html
At the start of the NBA season, the BE had 49 active NBA players vs. 38 for the Big Ten(11). The BE has 5 more teams, so the average for the Big 10 is actually higher. Another interesting stat is that UCONN accounts for 12 of the active 49 BE teams. We all know that UCONN is a NBA factory, but surprisingly, they have only won 2 championships in my lifetime. The player breakdown by school for the Big 10 is a bit more evenly spread out through the conference teams.
Everything is cyclical and perception isn't always reality. For some reason the Big 10 Football and Basketball has been the whipping boy for sports media pundits. This has seeped into the minds of the casual fans. In the end, there is no doubt that the Big 10 is a top conference with top players that have graduated to the pro level.
Everything is cyclical and perception isn't always reality. For some reason the Big 10 Football and Basketball has been the whipping boy for sports media pundits. This has seeped into the minds of the casual fans. In the end, there is no doubt that the Big 10 is a top conference with top players that have graduated to the pro level.
[/quote]
I agree, the media does show a negative light. Paterno makes a great point when he speaks of a Conference Championship Game for football. There is the dead week for Big Ten (11) in football when all the other power conferences get national exposure on their elite teams.
Also, the Big Ten (11) conference tourney began in '98 I believe so they were behind the curve in that regards as well. To say that the Big 10 (11) is dull to watch at times, true, to say that talent does not exist would be false.
They can have Rutgers...
...in exchange for two first round draft picks and Kyle Orton.
Quote from: Kramerica on May 01, 2009, 08:40:43 AM
As a resident of Missouri, the University of Missouri has no desire to move to the Big 10. Plus they have too big of a rival in the Big 12 (Kansas) to have a move to the Big 10 make sense.
I've lived in St. Louis for all my life besides the four years I spent at Marquette, and I've never heard a move to the Big 10 discussed once.
Plus doesn't Missouri play a too exciting brand of football and basketball to play in the Big 10? I mean their basketball team scores 80+ points a game.
You don't know what you're talking about. Missouri would kill to join the Big 10 and it's been discussed for many years.
I've been saying it on this board for over a year now. Rutgers has been on the Big 11's radar. My guy at the Big 11 Network has confirmed as well. Lots of hoops to jump through, 2016/2017 is the earliest such a move can happen.
Quote from: MUDish on May 01, 2009, 10:21:41 AM
I've been saying it on this board for over a year now. Rutgers has been on the Big 11's radar. My guy at the Big 11 Network has confirmed as well. Lots of hoops to jump through, 2016/2017 is the earliest such a move can happen.
New Jersey is pretty far East for the B10... but I guess the Big East broke the mold for snapping up schools outside of their traditional geographic area.
For all of the jaded hate for all things Wisconsin and the Big 10 here, the Big 10 is still...well, the Big 10 whether you can admit it to yourself or not. Rodriguez, Crean, Beilein all left good gigs to go the the Big 10. You don't see any exodus the other way. The tradition is powerful.
The BE is still very new in it's current form and even it biggest backers are afraid of an eventual football led break up.
There isn't a single BE football school that wouldn't leave for the Big 10 in 2.2 seconds. That's where the $$ is.
Missouri, Iowa St, and several of B12 schools would jump quickly as well.
And Hayward the bottom of B10 hoops was either in the tourney or winning the NIT. The bottom of the BE was simply awful as much as the top was great. NBA prospects from the lower teams? Who cares? Winning counts. And...proofread/spellcheck.
Quote from: butchbadger on May 01, 2009, 10:34:26 AM
For all of the jaded hate for all things Wisconsin and the Big 10 here, the Big 10 is still...well, the Big 10 whether you can admit it to yourself or not. Rodriguez, Crean, Beilein all left good gigs to go the the Big 10. You don't see any exodus the other way. The tradition is powerful.
The BE is still very new in it's current form and even it biggest backers are afraid of an eventual football led break up.
There isn't a single BE football school that wouldn't leave for the Big 10 in 2.2 seconds. That's where the $$ is.
Missouri, Iowa St, and several of B12 schools would jump quickly as well.
And Hayward the bottom of B10 hoops was either in the tourney or winning the NIT. The bottom of the BE was simply awful as much as the top was great. NBA prospects from the lower teams? Who cares? Winning counts. And...proofread/spellcheck.
I actually agree with most of what you have said...
But, I can't imagine UCONN (a football school, right?) wanting to jump to the B10.
West Virginia? Maybe.
Louisville? Maybe.
UCONN? uhhh, I just don't see it.
South Florida either.
Not completely convinced Syracuse would either.
Quote from: MUinCO on May 01, 2009, 09:49:33 AM
They can have Rutgers...
...in exchange for two first round draft picks and Kyle Orton.
You forgot about the third round pick.
Quote from: butchbadger on May 01, 2009, 10:34:26 AM
Rodriguez, Crean, Beilein all left good gigs to go the the Big 10.
And? What exactly is that supposed to imply?
Quote from: butchbadger on May 01, 2009, 10:34:26 AM
And...proofread/spellcheck.
DB alert!
Quote from: NavinRJohnson on May 01, 2009, 09:37:58 AM
Frankly, I have felt for years that Pitt is a natural for the Big 10.
You would think so but there is no way Pitt joins the Big 11. In fact I am shocked that Paterno mentioned Pitt as a possibility. For full disclosure I am a rabid PSU fan, so take this for what its worth. Back in '92, '93 when the negotiations of bringing Penn State into the Big Ten, they were going to be joined by either Pitt or Notre Dame to balance everything. PSU was the center piece of the deal, with ND being the reach and Pitt being if we don't have any other choice. Pitt has always had an inferiority complex when it comes to PSU(see May, Mark), and so the Pitt AD tried to work a backroom deal with the Big 10 to make the deal Pitt and ND and drop PSU, siting how "backwoods" and "far" State College was for the rest of the B10. Unknown to the AD, Notre Dame had already said no, PSU caught wind of what they did and refused to join the B10 if Pitt did. So the B10 took PSU alone. Penn State won't even schedule a non-conference game with them now, let alone support their inclusion into the Big 10. I think Rutgers is going to be the school if any that moves from BEast to B10.
Not scheduling Pitt goes back much further than the Big 10 issue. Paterno is still pissed that Pitt chose to join the Big East in 1982 rather than stay with PSU and form a new league like he wanted.
Quote from: butchbadger on May 01, 2009, 10:34:26 AM
For all of the jaded hate for all things Wisconsin and the Big 10 here, the Big 10 is still...well, the Big 10 whether you can admit it to yourself or not. Rodriguez, Crean, Beilein all left good gigs to go the the Big 10. You don't see any exodus the other way. The tradition is powerful.
The BE is still very new in it's current form and even it biggest backers are afraid of an eventual football led break up.
There isn't a single BE football school that wouldn't leave for the Big 10 in 2.2 seconds. That's where the $$ is.
Missouri, Iowa St, and several of B12 schools would jump quickly as well.
And Hayward the bottom of B10 hoops was either in the tourney or winning the NIT. The bottom of the BE was simply awful as much as the top was great. NBA prospects from the lower teams? Who cares? Winning counts. And...proofread/spellcheck.
I did not realize PSU came in last in the B10 i actually thought they came in 4th ( which they did BTW) my point remains B10 plays some really ugly basketball some of the scores from last year and years gone by are openly mocked by sports personalities on TV and Radio ...was it Packer that said Wisocnsin set basketball back 50 years during therefinal 4 game. etc. etc. Now they produce some good teams and recruit the midwest weel. But your very best teams recruit nationally and personally and i dont think i am the first one to express this, but myself and maybe others feel the slowdown Hickory high style of ball deters many of the top recruits from being interested in the B!0 unless they grew up in B10 country and grew up knowing nothing else.
My point on the NBA talent is even the teams that finished in the bottom of the league their is NBA talent...Depaul in last place is a perfect example they have two draftable players in the draft right now. Part of the problem is the BE is so tough at the top...rmeber we had 3 #1 seeds?? and those lower teams get pounded while they would fare far better in alesser conference like the B10 or the Sec this year. Now in comparison rutgers had two Mcdonalds all americans, Deaaul 1 and another pro. How many furute pros were on the bottom of the B11 in Indiana, NW and iowa...correct zero. the talent void is huge. You can argue it all you want just watch the B11/Acc challenge again this fall...the Bi11 is 0 for how many years?? and most years it is not even close, it is ablow out as the ACC talent simply blows the B10 away, Be is the same way tons and tons of talent.
Not saying the B11 cant throw together a good team and make a run but from top to bottom the B11 lacks talent in a big way. Please Iowa..Nw...PSu most years...etc... + Hickory high with soem weight training
Quote from: NavinRJohnson on May 01, 2009, 10:49:45 AM
Not completely convinced Syracuse would either.
Syracuse wanted to join the ACC. They'd join the Big Ten in a half a second if asked.
Quote from: MUDish on May 01, 2009, 10:21:41 AM
I've been saying it on this board for over a year now. Rutgers has been on the Big 11's radar. My guy at the Big 11 Network has confirmed as well. Lots of hoops to jump through, 2016/2017 is the earliest such a move can happen.
It is about the media market with Rutgers consideration in the B10. It would be huge for Rutgers or any BE FB program to be invited into the B10.
Let us be clear about a couple of things first, the Big 10 will only accepts certain schools of an academic standard to fit their conference. The School woudl have to be a member of the Association of American Universities and be a research institution. The other is that the most natural fit traditionally and geographically other then Notre Dame is Pittsburgh, who is Penn State's traditional rival. Rutgers and Syracuse's natural alumni base in New York are what makes those schools appealing. the Big 10 Would rather expand into a few larger markets the go someplace like Iowa State or Missouri.
Quote from: butchbadger on May 01, 2009, 10:34:26 AM
For all of the jaded hate for all things Wisconsin and the Big 10 here, the Big 10 is still...well, the Big 10 whether you can admit it to yourself or not. Rodriguez, Crean, Beilein all left good gigs to go the the Big 10. You don't see any exodus the other way. The tradition is powerful.
The BE is still very new in it's current form and even it biggest backers are afraid of an eventual football led break up.
There isn't a single BE football school that wouldn't leave for the Big 10 in 2.2 seconds. That's where the $$ is.
Missouri, Iowa St, and several of B12 schools would jump quickly as well.
And Hayward the bottom of B10 hoops was either in the tourney or winning the NIT. The bottom of the BE was simply awful as much as the top was great. NBA prospects from the lower teams? Who cares? Winning counts. And...proofread/spellcheck.
While I would agree with your general premise that the Big10 might be the premiere overall conference (some would argue the Pac10), citing three coaches leaving the Big East to go to the Big 10 doesn't really prove your point. Don't you think DeChellis or Tubby would leave in an instant to go to UConn? What about Self leaving Illinois to go to a Big 12 school.
Not sure about those two and not sure if UConn is a big draw w/out Calhoun.
Tubby will leave eventually because UM has a horrible athletic department that always finds a way to mess things up.
Regarding Self...it's Kansas...it's Kansas. 8-) ;)
95% of the coaches would leave for UCLA, Kansas, UNC, or Duke.
Quote from: MUMOVERUWMBA2011 on May 01, 2009, 12:24:21 PM
The School woudl have to be a member of the Association of American Universities and be a research institution.
The AAU membership isn't that important. Notre Dame isn't a member, and the Big 10 would kill to have them join the league.
Quote from: bma725 on May 01, 2009, 11:19:16 AM
Not scheduling Pitt goes back much further than the Big 10 issue. Paterno is still pissed that Pitt chose to join the Big East in 1982 rather than stay with PSU and form a new league like he wanted.
BMA, agree it does go way back, they've hated each other for years. Bottom line, Pitt isn't making the B10 anytime soon, and I don't know why the B10 would want Pitt, doesn't give them any new markets, etc.
Quote from: butchbadger on May 01, 2009, 12:43:00 PM
Not sure about those two and not sure if UConn is a big draw w/out Calhoun.
Tubby will leave eventually because UM has a horrible athletic department that always finds a way to mess things up.
Regarding Self...it's Kansas...it's Kansas. 8-) ;)
95% of the coaches would leave for UCLA, Kansas, UNC, or Duke.
Ok, Bill Frieder to ASU? And Frieder was walking away from the eventual NCAA Championship team.
The only consistently good programs in the B10 are Michigan State, and ... nobody. IU, Illinois and UM have fallen on hard times that only programs like OSU and Wisconsin would experience (1-2 good years, followed by 2-3 bad years). And don't point at ugly basketball in the BE - 38-33, that says it all. And that score was put up by two of the BETTER teams in the B10!!!
Except for MSU, all other B10 teams had a loosing record vs. AP Top 25 teams.
But back the the subject at hand. ND will never join the B10, why would they, they have the best football tv contract in the country. Joining a conference for football would cost them money. Pitt would love to, would be great exposure for their football team, and they'd dominate basketball. I could see Cinny in teh b10 too, but I don't think the stench of Huggins has been removed from the University for the B10 to think about that one. Rutgers and Syracuse would certainly make sense, I doubt Syracuse needs better ties to Detroit for basketball talent - but it would help the Orange football team tons.
I think it would all come down to if the B10 wants to expand, and who they would approach first - because I don't think they'd get to the number 2 on their list (unless ND was #1).
Quote from: butchbadger on May 01, 2009, 12:43:00 PM
Not sure about those two and not sure if UConn is a big draw w/out Calhoun.
Tubby will leave eventually because UM has a horrible athletic department that always finds a way to mess things up.
Regarding Self...it's Kansas...it's Kansas. 8-) ;)
95% of the coaches would leave for UCLA, Kansas, UNC, or Duke.
See, while I agreed with you before, I think you are losing credibility now.
What makes MN's athletic department so bad?
Is it just because they are a rival and you don't like them?
This year they appear to be doing pretty well across all aspects of the athletic department as they are currently second in the Director's Cup. Sure looks horrible to me. I bet they will hate that new stadium next year too.
http://www.nacda.com/auto_pdf/p_hotos/s_chools/nacda/sports/directorscup/auto_pdf/d1april23standings
Quote from: butchbadger on May 01, 2009, 10:34:26 AM
For all of the jaded hate for all things Wisconsin and the Big 10 here, the Big 10 is still...well, the Big 10 whether you can admit it to yourself or not. Rodriguez, Crean, Beilein all left good gigs to go the the Big 10. You don't see any exodus the other way. The tradition is powerful.
The BE is still very new in it's current form and even it biggest backers are afraid of an eventual football led break up.
There isn't a single BE football school that wouldn't leave for the Big 10 in 2.2 seconds. That's where the $$ is.
Missouri, Iowa St, and several of B12 schools would jump quickly as well.
And Hayward the bottom of B10 hoops was either in the tourney or winning the NIT. The bottom of the BE was simply awful as much as the top was great. NBA prospects from the lower teams? Who cares? Winning counts. And...proofread/spellcheck.
All true Butch, the Big Ten is still...the Big Ten....it's also why so many in the country laugh at the Big Ten's performance of late. Boring product, blowouts in the championship games. When you pump yourself constantly as their fans and schools do, the fall is that much more enjoyable to watch.
Let's also not forget that folks have left the Big Ten, also, to coach elsewhere. Bill Self, Nick Saban, etc, (Tubby will soon....much to your delight) let alone those that were run out for cheating (Haskins, O'Brien, Sampson, etc).
I agree that most BE football teams would leave for the Big Ten and it's absolutely about $$$$ (it's certainly not about the exciting brand of football), but the basketball coaches would bitch a fit having to play in the Big Ten. It would be interesting, but I don't see the Cuse going. Pitt would. Rutgers would. Boston College could leave the ACC to go there. I think you're wrong on Missouri even though they've been thrown around like crazy in terms of a popular name. They are entrenched in the Big 12, not sure why they would want to leave (they have a rivalry with Illinois but that's it).
Football is king, but the B10 is pretty strong in both. In the BCS era here are the rankings of BB/FB programs.
3 of the top 10 and 5 of 25. If you threw in another revenue sport -hockey - it would be stronger.
Clearly it isn't easy to be good in 2 sports.
I am not sure who I would want as #12 besides ND. The continued collpase of their program may force them to make a changes in 5-10 years. Their schedule is so easy this year that Weis may fool some of the fans their again. Probably Cuse. BC would be interesting too.
The Top 25 since 1998
1. Florida (27.5 football, 33 basketball, 60.5 total points)
The buzz: Florida is the only team that has won national titles in both football and basketball during the BCS era.
2. Ohio State (41 football, 15.5 basketball, 56.5 total points)
The buzz: Ohio State won the 2002 national title in football and has reached a championship game three other times – 2006 and 2007 in football plus 2007 in basketball.
3. Oklahoma (36.5 football, 13 basketball, 49.5 total points)
The buzz: Oklahoma has won one national football championship (2000), has lost in the BCS title game two other times (2003 and 2004) and has reached a Final Four (2002) during the BCS era.
4. USC (43 football, 5.5 basketball, 48.5 total points)
The buzz: USC's recent basketball success under Tim Floyd allowed the Trojans to qualify for this list, though they didn't have enough basketball points to crack our rankings of the top programs since 1974.
5. Texas (29.5 football, 15.5 basketball, 45 total points)
The buzz: The Longhorns won the 2005 national football title and reached a Final Four in 2003.
6. LSU (34.5 football, 8 basketball, 42.5 total points)
The buzz: LSU has won two BCS national titles (2003 and '07) and got enough points from its 2006 Final Four run to qualify for this list.
7. Michigan State (5 football, 30.5 basketball, 35.5 total points)
The buzz: Michigan State's No. 7 finish in the 1999 AP football poll gave the Spartans enough football points to crack these rankings.
8. (tie) Tennessee (24.5 football, 6.5 basketball, 31 total points)
The buzz: Tennessee won the first BCS national title in 1998 and also earned enough basketball points to qualify because of the program's resurgence under Bruce Pearl.
8. (tie) Wisconsin (16.5 football, 14.5 basketball, 31 total points)
The buzz: Louisville was the only team on this list with a similar balance of football and basketball points.
10. Maryland (6.5 football, 22 basketball, 28.5 total points)
The buzz: The Terps won the 2002 NCAA Tournament and finished in the top 16 in the football rankings in 2001 and 2002.
11. Kansas (4.5 football, 23 baskeball, 27.5 total points)
The buzz: Kansas' Cinderella run to the Orange Bowl title this year gave the Jayhawks enough football points to qualify for this list.
12. UCLA (7.5 football, 19 basketball, 26.5 total points)
The buzz: UCLA finished No. 8 in the AP football rankings in 1998, placed second in the 2006 NCAA Tournament and also reached the Final Four last season.
13. Arizona (5 football, 18.5 basketball, 23.5 total points)
The buzz: Arizona's fourth-place finish in the 1998 AP poll gave the Wildcats enough football points to qualify, even though they haven't earned a bowl bid since.
14. Oregon (14 football, 7 basketball, 21 total points)
The buzz: Oregon finished second in the nation in football in 2001 and made the regional finals of the 2002 and 2007 NCAA tournaments.
15. Syracuse (4 football, 16.5 basketball, 20.5 total points)
The buzz: The 2003 NCAA Tournament champions slipped into the rankings by achieving the minimum number of football points to qualify.
16. Auburn (15 football, 5 basketball, 20 total points)
The buzz: Auburn finished second in the AP football poll in 2004 and has reached the Sweet 16 twice (1999 and 2003) in the BCS era.
17. Louisville (10 football, 8.5 basketball, 18.5 total points)
The buzz: Louisville capped the 2006 football season with an Orange Bowl title and reached the Final Four in 2005.
18. Alabama (11.5 football, 6 basketball, 17.5 total points)
The buzz: Alabama has finished 11th or better in the AP poll three times (1999, 2002 and 2005) and reached an NCAA Tournament regional final in 2004.
19. (tie) Oklahoma State (4 football, 13 basketball, 17 total points)
The buzz: The Cowboys reached the 2004 Final Four, advanced to a regional final in 2000 and earned just enough football points to qualify for the rankings.
19. (tie) Georgia Tech (8 football, 9 basketball, 17 total points)
The buzz: Georgia Tech finished second in the 2004 NCAA Tournament and has played in a bowl game each season since the BCS was introduced.
22. (tie) Boston College (9.5 football, 6.5 basketball 16 total points)
The buzz: The Eagles have earned eight consecutive bowl bids and have reached the NCAA Tournament six of the past seven seasons.
22. (tie) West Virginia (11 football, 5 basketball, 16 total points)
The buzz: The Mountaineers have earned three consecutive top-10 finishes in the AP football poll, reached a regional final in 2005 and advanced to the Sweet 16 in 2006.
24. Iowa (11 football, 4 basketball, 15 total points)
The buzz: Iowa had three consecutive eighth-place finishes in the AP poll from 2002-04 and had just enough basketball points to make the list.
25. Purdue (7.5 football, 7 basketball, 14.5 total points)
The buzz: The Boilermakers reached the Sweet 16 in 1999, advanced to the regional finals in 2000 and have earned bowl bids during all but one season of the BCS era.
Other schools with enough points in each sport to qualify
Missouri (8 football, 6 basketball, 14 total points), Cincinnati (4.5 football, 7.5 basketball, 12 total points), Washington (7 football, 5 basketball, 12 total points), North Carolina State (6 football, 5.5 basketball, 11.5 total points), Texas Tech (7 football, 4 basketball, 11 total points), Notre Dame (6 football, 4.5 basketball, 10.5 total points).
Edit: The B10 is almost all spread offenses now. UW is one of the few pro style offenses around. Hard to run it without a D1 QB though. That is why they run it so much. The B12 plays no defense at all. The SEC hasn't had much offense in 3-4 seasons outside of FL.
Quote from: indeelaw90 on May 01, 2009, 12:35:00 PM
While I would agree with your general premise that the Big10 might be the premiere overall conference (some would argue the Pac10), citing three coaches leaving the Big East to go to the Big 10 doesn't really prove your point. Don't you think DeChellis or Tubby would leave in an instant to go to UConn? What about Self leaving Illinois to go to a Big 12 school.
Pac Ten, hands down. More NCAA titles then any other conference and the lead is so big it's off the radar. Of course then we have people saying so many of these titles are in "lesser sports" which I find to be garbage. The Pac Ten schools win the Sears Cup every year as the best athletic department, they usually have a handful of schools in the top 10, more national titles than anyone in all sports plus they do pretty damn well in the "majors" like hoops (UCLA) and football (USC). Tiebreaker goes to the COEDS as well.
:)
Quote from: 2002mualum on May 01, 2009, 01:27:54 PM
See, while I agreed with you before, I think you are losing credibility now.
What makes MN's athletic department so bad?
Is it just because they are a rival and you don't like them?
This year they appear to be doing pretty well across all aspects of the athletic department as they are currently second in the Director's Cup. Sure looks horrible to me. I bet they will hate that new stadium next year too.
http://www.nacda.com/auto_pdf/p_hotos/s_chools/nacda/sports/directorscup/auto_pdf/d1april23standings
Those include only the winter rankings, by the time the spring ratings are included, you'll see USC, UCLA, CAL, in their customary top 15 spots. Stanford likely winning it all again.
Quote from: butchbadger on May 01, 2009, 01:32:58 PM
Football is king, but the B10 is pretty strong in both. In the BCS era here are the rankings of BB/FB programs.
3 of the top 10 and 5 of 25. If you threw in another revenue sport -hockey - it would be stronger.
Clearly it isn't easy to be good in 2 sports.
I am not sure who I would want as #12 besides ND. The continued collpase of their program may force them to make a changes in 5-10 years. Their schedule is so easy this year that Weis may fool some of the fans their again. Probably Cuse. BC would be interesting too.
The Top 25 since 1998
1. Florida (27.5 football, 33 basketball, 60.5 total points)
The buzz: Florida is the only team that has won national titles in both football and basketball during the BCS era.
2. Ohio State (41 football, 15.5 basketball, 56.5 total points)
The buzz: Ohio State won the 2002 national title in football and has reached a championship game three other times – 2006 and 2007 in football plus 2007 in basketball.
3. Oklahoma (36.5 football, 13 basketball, 49.5 total points)
The buzz: Oklahoma has won one national football championship (2000), has lost in the BCS title game two other times (2003 and 2004) and has reached a Final Four (2002) during the BCS era.
4. USC (43 football, 5.5 basketball, 48.5 total points)
The buzz: USC's recent basketball success under Tim Floyd allowed the Trojans to qualify for this list, though they didn't have enough basketball points to crack our rankings of the top programs since 1974.
5. Texas (29.5 football, 15.5 basketball, 45 total points)
The buzz: The Longhorns won the 2005 national football title and reached a Final Four in 2003.
6. LSU (34.5 football, 8 basketball, 42.5 total points)
The buzz: LSU has won two BCS national titles (2003 and '07) and got enough points from its 2006 Final Four run to qualify for this list.
7. Michigan State (5 football, 30.5 basketball, 35.5 total points)
The buzz: Michigan State's No. 7 finish in the 1999 AP football poll gave the Spartans enough football points to crack these rankings.
8. (tie) Tennessee (24.5 football, 6.5 basketball, 31 total points)
The buzz: Tennessee won the first BCS national title in 1998 and also earned enough basketball points to qualify because of the program's resurgence under Bruce Pearl.
8. (tie) Wisconsin (16.5 football, 14.5 basketball, 31 total points)
The buzz: Louisville was the only team on this list with a similar balance of football and basketball points.
10. Maryland (6.5 football, 22 basketball, 28.5 total points)
The buzz: The Terps won the 2002 NCAA Tournament and finished in the top 16 in the football rankings in 2001 and 2002.
11. Kansas (4.5 football, 23 baskeball, 27.5 total points)
The buzz: Kansas' Cinderella run to the Orange Bowl title this year gave the Jayhawks enough football points to qualify for this list.
12. UCLA (7.5 football, 19 basketball, 26.5 total points)
The buzz: UCLA finished No. 8 in the AP football rankings in 1998, placed second in the 2006 NCAA Tournament and also reached the Final Four last season.
13. Arizona (5 football, 18.5 basketball, 23.5 total points)
The buzz: Arizona's fourth-place finish in the 1998 AP poll gave the Wildcats enough football points to qualify, even though they haven't earned a bowl bid since.
14. Oregon (14 football, 7 basketball, 21 total points)
The buzz: Oregon finished second in the nation in football in 2001 and made the regional finals of the 2002 and 2007 NCAA tournaments.
15. Syracuse (4 football, 16.5 basketball, 20.5 total points)
The buzz: The 2003 NCAA Tournament champions slipped into the rankings by achieving the minimum number of football points to qualify.
16. Auburn (15 football, 5 basketball, 20 total points)
The buzz: Auburn finished second in the AP football poll in 2004 and has reached the Sweet 16 twice (1999 and 2003) in the BCS era.
17. Louisville (10 football, 8.5 basketball, 18.5 total points)
The buzz: Louisville capped the 2006 football season with an Orange Bowl title and reached the Final Four in 2005.
18. Alabama (11.5 football, 6 basketball, 17.5 total points)
The buzz: Alabama has finished 11th or better in the AP poll three times (1999, 2002 and 2005) and reached an NCAA Tournament regional final in 2004.
19. (tie) Oklahoma State (4 football, 13 basketball, 17 total points)
The buzz: The Cowboys reached the 2004 Final Four, advanced to a regional final in 2000 and earned just enough football points to qualify for the rankings.
19. (tie) Georgia Tech (8 football, 9 basketball, 17 total points)
The buzz: Georgia Tech finished second in the 2004 NCAA Tournament and has played in a bowl game each season since the BCS was introduced.
22. (tie) Boston College (9.5 football, 6.5 basketball 16 total points)
The buzz: The Eagles have earned eight consecutive bowl bids and have reached the NCAA Tournament six of the past seven seasons.
22. (tie) West Virginia (11 football, 5 basketball, 16 total points)
The buzz: The Mountaineers have earned three consecutive top-10 finishes in the AP football poll, reached a regional final in 2005 and advanced to the Sweet 16 in 2006.
24. Iowa (11 football, 4 basketball, 15 total points)
The buzz: Iowa had three consecutive eighth-place finishes in the AP poll from 2002-04 and had just enough basketball points to make the list.
25. Purdue (7.5 football, 7 basketball, 14.5 total points)
The buzz: The Boilermakers reached the Sweet 16 in 1999, advanced to the regional finals in 2000 and have earned bowl bids during all but one season of the BCS era.
Other schools with enough points in each sport to qualify
Missouri (8 football, 6 basketball, 14 total points), Cincinnati (4.5 football, 7.5 basketball, 12 total points), Washington (7 football, 5 basketball, 12 total points), North Carolina State (6 football, 5.5 basketball, 11.5 total points), Texas Tech (7 football, 4 basketball, 11 total points), Notre Dame (6 football, 4.5 basketball, 10.5 total points).
Edit: The B10 is almost all spread offenses now. UW is one of the few pro style offenses around. Hard to run it without a D1 QB though. That is why they run it so much. The B12 plays no defense at all. The SEC hasn't had much offense in 3-4 seasons outside of FL.
You have the 3rd highest athletic budget in the country and you're only finishing 8th? Your ROI isn't very good. What's going on over there in Madison, why aren't you winning more titles and finishing higher then you are? For the size of your budget, you're underperforming against your peers who are spending less.
Quote from: ChicosBailBonds on May 01, 2009, 01:47:17 PM
Those include only the winter rankings, by the time the spring ratings are included, you'll see USC, UCLA, CAL, in their customary top 15 spots. Stanford likely winning it all again.
Sure, I realize that.
Butch makes a bold statement about MN having a horrible athlete department, which really isn't true. It's probably just his perception because he dislikes the Gophers.
Here is a quote from his original post:
"For all of the jaded hate for all things Wisconsin and the Big 10 here, the Big 10 is still...well, the Big 10 whether you can admit it to yourself or not. "
Butch, maybe you should look in the mirror and realize that while you are taking shots at MU fans for not being able to admit UW is a good program, you are doing the same thing to MN.
Quote from: 2002mualum on May 01, 2009, 01:55:27 PM
Sure, I realize that.
Butch makes a bold statement about MN having a horrible athlete department, which really isn't true. It's probably just his perception because he dislikes the Gophers.
Here is a quote from his original post:
"For all of the jaded hate for all things Wisconsin and the Big 10 here, the Big 10 is still...well, the Big 10 whether you can admit it to yourself or not. "
Butch, maybe you should look in the mirror and realize that while you are taking shots at MU fans for not being able to admit UW is a good program, you are doing the same thing to MN.
+1
Quote from: Skatastrophy on May 01, 2009, 10:25:28 AM
New Jersey is pretty far East for the B10... but I guess the Big East broke the mold for snapping up schools outside of their traditional geographic area.
Ever tried to get to Happy Valley? New Jersey is a breeze compared to that.
That may be true regarding Minesota. ;)
But they ahave found more ways to fail in football and hoops in the last decade or two than I can count. Even in their king - hockey - UW has more titles. Football and basketball have been a mess. It has nothing to do with me not liking them...and I don't. :)
Nice campus...nice new stadium...under achieving in football and basketball for a long time now. My point about their athletic dept is they will probably end up cheaping out and not paying Tubby enough.
Give me a break. Nobody gives a rat's ass about any "Director's Cup" other than athletic department geeks. I promise you that Minnesota would trade success in any sport other than hockey for success in football or basketball.
Quote from: 79Warrior on May 01, 2009, 02:01:05 PM
Ever tried to get to Happy Valley? New Jersey is a breeze compared to that.
For teams to get in and out of Happy Valley its a breeze, they have an airport right next to the campus, it is actually one of the most accessible campus for other teams to get to. Now fans driving there is a totally different story. :)
Quote from: PuertoRicanNightmare on May 01, 2009, 02:26:37 PM
Give me a break. Nobody gives a rat's ass about any "Director's Cup" other than athletic department geeks. I promise you that Minnesota would trade success in any sport other than hockey for success in football or basketball.
You bring up a good point, and I don't necessarily disagree.
However, if somebody is going to predict a coach leaving because an athletic department is "horrible", how is that same department so successful in all of the other programs? (director's cup)
They must be bringing in and retaining good coaches in most/all of the other programs, right?
If they are doing so well in the other programs, it's probably only a matter of time before the "new" athletic department (including the new AD, basketball coach and football coach) get it right.
Quote from: butchbadger on May 01, 2009, 02:21:19 PM
That may be true regarding Minesota. ;)
But they ahave found more ways to fail in football and hoops in the last decade or two than I can count. Even in their king - hockey - UW has more titles. Football and basketball have been a mess. It has nothing to do with me not liking them...and I don't. :)
Nice campus...nice new stadium...under achieving in football and basketball for a long time now. My point about their athletic dept is they will probably end up cheaping out and not paying Tubby enough.
#1 the past decade has not been kind to either the basketball or football programs, this is true. However, changes in the athletic department and in the coaching has both programs optimistic for the future.
#2 Past failures in 2 programs isn't necessarily an indication of future failures. In the past, the UofM athletic department was not successful finding and retaining talented football coaches, but that
can change. (see Alverez, Barry or Ryan, Bo) UW actually is a good example for UofM to follow.
#3 The hockey comment is really a throw-away. Both programs have been historically successful as well as recently successful. Neither team can say that it's significantly better than the other. Anybody who does is just being a homer.
#4 UW is better in most aspects compared to UofM, I'm merely pointing out the hypocrisy of implying MU fans are not able to look at UW and the Big 10 objectively when you are really doing the same thing to UofM. Look at them objectively. You still may think that they will not retain Tubby (that's just your opinion), but to make the blanket statement that the athletic department is "horrible", speaks volumes about your lack of objectivity.
#5 2 typos in your post. :-)
Quote from: PuertoRicanNightmare on May 01, 2009, 02:26:37 PM
Give me a break. Nobody gives a rat's ass about any "Director's Cup" other than athletic department geeks. I promise you that Minnesota would trade success in any sport other than hockey for success in football or basketball.
Said by someone from the midwest where only two sports are played. ;)
Sorry, there are many places outside the chilly midwest where other sports are played and consumed. College baseball, softball, volleyball, etc.
But I do agree with you that Minnesota would trade success in any other sport for football or basketball, of course they would....that's where the benjamins are. But are we judging the best conferences only on what they do in 2 sports? I hope not.
Wow, everyone loves to act like they know what schools want to be in the Big Ten. UCONN, Syracuse...really? Why would Syracuse make football harder on them than it is? Notre Dame and Pittsburgh make more sense, but if anything actually does change I think its going to be bigger than a few teams switching. Oh and I completely agree, Mizzou ain't going anywhere without Kansas...alums are more interested in beating and pissing off KU than every Big10 team combined (theres not much interest in Big10 teams in general in Columbia and Kansas City)...oh and its soo much easier to get to a BCS game in the Big12. Why would they risk damaging the football program they've finally built up now?
Are you telling me Missouri and Illinois are not rivals? That will be news to both schools. They go out of their way to schedule each other in both basketball and football every year.
If you don't think Missouri would jump at the chance to join the Big 10 you are absolutely out of your mind. It boggles my mind that anybody would believe that.
And suggesting joining the Big 10 would damage (!!!!) Missouri's football program? Credibility anybody? Anybody?
Quote from: PuertoRicanNightmare on May 01, 2009, 05:06:15 PM
Are you telling me Missouri and Illinois are not rivals? That will be news to both schools. They go out of their way to schedule each other in both basketball and football every year.
If you don't think Missouri would jump at the chance to join the Big 10 you are absolutely out of your mind. It boggles my mind that anybody would believe that.
And suggesting joining the Big 10 would damage (!!!!) Missouri's football program? Credibility anybody? Anybody?
Are you trying to tell me Illinois is even in the same realm as the Kansas rivalry? Cause if you do believe that, you know nothing about Mizzou. I was saying it would damage Mizzou's football program because look at the competition! It is sooooo much easier to get to the Big12 title game, a bowl game and even a national championship in the Big12 North (remember Kansas a few years ago...that was a joke to almost every Big12 fan that they even had a shot-they played no one the whole year). The way the scheduling works, Missouri may only have to play A&M, Baylor and Oklahoma State some years....that makes it alot easier to go undefeated!
Stop citing your articles from ten years ago-which, by the way, mentions Texas as a possibility. Does everyone think the Big10 has unlimited range and reach? No one cares about the big10 in Missouri (except some closer to St. Louis), their history is in the Big8. Dont go thinking its so easy to throw that away for a chance to play in the amazing and illustrious Big10.
It boggles my mind that you would say something like "they would jump at the chance." Really, everyone wants in the big 10 so bad that when the Big10 asks teams to jump they just respond 'how high?' no questions asked. You're also undervaluing the alums here, who would be furious with such a move.
Lastly, Illinois and Mizzou do not go OUT OF THEIR WAY to schedule each other. Thats like saying MU and UW go out of their way, a gross exaggeration. Its one game a year, which in basketball isnt much and in football is a plus because it helps the strength of schedule. I bet the athletic directors had to be dragged to the table to schedule the most profitable out of conference game of the year.
Quote from: PuertoRicanNightmare on May 01, 2009, 05:06:15 PM
Are you telling me Missouri and Illinois are not rivals? That will be news to both schools. They go out of their way to schedule each other in both basketball and football every year.
If you don't think Missouri would jump at the chance to join the Big 10 you are absolutely out of your mind. It boggles my mind that anybody would believe that.
And suggesting joining the Big 10 would damage (!!!!) Missouri's football program? Credibility anybody? Anybody?
Mizzu and Illinois are definitely rivals, but I also don't see it happening. Maybe it's my KU background but the Big 8 and then the Big 12 is a great conference with long standing rivalries.
You're talking about a CHARTER MEMBER since 1907 (back then known as the MVIAA). You don't just throw that away. What would it give them that the Big 12 doesn't already have?
I don't see a school with over 100 years in the same conference leaving to join the Big Ten where they have one rival and basically no other connection. Just don't see it.....too much history with the Big 8/Big 12.
The Big 12 is also one of the best baseball conferences in the country. I can't see Missouri giving that up to join the Big Ten which is pretty piss poor with baseball (sans Michigan and Minnesota).
Quote from: ChicosBailBonds on May 01, 2009, 05:23:18 PM
Mizzu and Illinois are definitely rivals, but I also don't see it happening. Maybe it's my KU background but the Big 8 and then the Big 12 is a great conference with long standing rivalries.
You're talking about a CHARTER MEMBER since 1907 (back then known as the MVIAA). You don't just throw that away. What would it give them that the Big 12 doesn't already have?
I don't see a school with over 100 years in the same conference leaving to join the Big Ten where they have one rival and basically no other connection. Just don't see it.....too much history with the Big 8/Big 12.
thank you
Quote from: indeelaw90 on May 01, 2009, 08:34:07 AM
Arkansas to Big 12, then Missouri to Big 10.....
I like your idea better Indee.
Quote from: butchbadger on May 01, 2009, 01:32:58 PM
Football is king, but the B10 is pretty strong in both. In the BCS era here are the rankings of BB/FB programs.
3 of the top 10 and 5 of 25. If you threw in another revenue sport -hockey - it would be stronger.
You're kidding right? B10 doesn't have hockey. All B10 hockey teams (for those schools that have a hockey team) play in the Central Collegiate Hockey Association with the likes of ND, Ferris State, Western Michigan, Lake Superior State, etc. Although Minnesota and Wisconsin might play in the WCHA with Denver, and a few schools out west.
Ironic, you used hockey to support your argument of the B10, when in actuality not all the B10 even play in the same conference.
Quote from: ChicosBailBonds on May 01, 2009, 05:23:18 PM
Mizzu and Illinois are definitely rivals, but I also don't see it happening. Maybe it's my KU background but the Big 8 and then the Big 12 is a great conference with long standing rivalries.
You're talking about a CHARTER MEMBER since 1907 (back then known as the MVIAA). You don't just throw that away. What would it give them that the Big 12 doesn't already have?
I don't see a school with over 100 years in the same conference leaving to join the Big Ten where they have one rival and basically no other connection. Just don't see it.....too much history with the Big 8/Big 12.
The Big 12 is also one of the best baseball conferences in the country. I can't see Missouri giving that up to join the Big Ten which is pretty piss poor with baseball (sans Michigan and Minnesota).
This is all fine and good, but when the Big Ten added Penn State, Missouri openly lobbied to be the 12th member. They didn't exactly make it a secret. Now this was pre-Big 12 days so their position might be different now, but at the time they were perfectly willing to sacrifice their history to join the B10.
The Commish says no-go....for now
http://sports.espn.go.com/ncf/news/story?id=4141080
I don't think you'll see the Big 10 expand via Mizzou, Cuse, Pitt or RU for awhile. It is very, very obvious that they are going to give ND every chance possible to join their conference.
Quote from: ChicosBailBonds on May 05, 2009, 01:06:00 PM
The Commish says no-go....for now
http://sports.espn.go.com/ncf/news/story?id=4141080
What I think would be most embarrasing for B10 fans, is that their commish just compared themselves to the ACC and the WAC. Of course, he could have compared them to the SEC and the Big 12 - conferences where the championship game has been a run away success.
Quote from: The Wizard of West Salem on May 05, 2009, 04:08:13 PM
What I think would be most embarrasing for B10 fans, is that their commish just compared themselves to the ACC and the WAC. Of course, he could have compared them to the SEC and the Big 12 - conferences where the championship game has been a run away success.
I'm all for bashing the Big 11 as much as possible, but he was referencing the ACC and the WAC because those conferences have recently gone through changes in membership institutions.
Quote from: TJ on May 05, 2009, 04:16:43 PM
I'm all for bashing the Big 11 as much as possible, but he was referencing the ACC and the WAC because those conferences have recently gone through changes in membership institutions.
No...he was referencing specifically the championship game:
"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."
I can guaranty that a B10 championship game in Indianapolis in early December would be a success. This is the same conference that held out having a conference basketball tournament for years - and now it's considered very successful.
Quote from: ChicosBailBonds on May 05, 2009, 01:06:00 PM
The Commish says no-go....for now
http://sports.espn.go.com/ncf/news/story?id=4141080
He's stating the obvious. Earliest expansion can possibly happen is 2016/2017.
Quote from: The Wizard of West Salem on May 05, 2009, 04:20:03 PM
No...he was referencing specifically the championship game:
"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."
I can guaranty that a B10 championship game in Indianapolis in early December would be a success. This is the same conference that held out having a conference basketball tournament for years - and now it's considered very successful.
I guess I just read his comments differently than you. I thought he was referencing Expansion, in the first paragraph and then Championships in the second paragraph.
I don't think he's necessarily right on either count, and I think you're right with your comment. But I'm glad they don't do it because it would take 3 valuable tv hours away from something more interesting every year.
Quote from: The Lens on May 05, 2009, 02:54:40 PM
I don't think you'll see the Big 10 expand via Mizzou, Cuse, Pitt or RU for awhile. It is very, very obvious that they are going to give ND every chance possible to join their conference.
Largely agree. I, for one, actually think ND will have a good year this year in football. I know many don't agree, but I see them winning 9 games. If they start to do that again consistently then the harder it is to see them in a conference.
Quote from: MUDish on May 05, 2009, 04:29:11 PM
He's stating the obvious. Earliest expansion can possibly happen is 2016/2017.
I'm not sure I understand why....I know you referenced the Big Ten Network in another post. We own part of the Big Ten Network and I deal with those guys all the time. I'm not sure what reference to 2016/2017 is in play that would delay expansion. At the end of the day, if the member institutions want to adjust the contract with all willing members agreeing to it, I don't see what it would have to wait until such date.
But you may be referencing something else....I'm not sure.
I agree that the B10 would like to wait for ND. The problem is that won't happen unless they really stink for a few years.
This year their schedule breaks perfectly and they appear better than they really are and the fan base will get a little more patient.
Quote from: ChicosBailBonds on May 05, 2009, 04:55:29 PM
I'm not sure I understand why....I know you referenced the Big Ten Network in another post. We own part of the Big Ten Network and I deal with those guys all the time. I'm not sure what reference to 2016/2017 is in play that would delay expansion. At the end of the day, if the member institutions want to adjust the contract with all willing members agreeing to it, I don't see what it would have to wait until such date.
But you may be referencing something else....I'm not sure.
NBC's contract with Notre Dame is up at the end of the 2015 football campagin. From what I hear, the Big 11 wants to make another run at the Irish (still number one target). They want to exhaust this option before pursuing Rutgers and Syracuse.
Not that it matters to anyone here, but I've been told it's "a lock" that if there is ever a Big 11 conference title football game, it'll be played at Soldier Field (I doubt anyone cares though).
Quote from: MUDish on May 05, 2009, 07:09:17 PM
NBC's contract with Notre Dame is up at the end of the 2015 football campagin. From what I hear, the Big 11 wants to make another run at the Irish (still number one target). They want to exhaust this option before pursuing Rutgers and Syracuse.
Not that it matters to anyone here, but I've been told it's "a lock" that if there is ever a Big 11 conference title football game, it'll be played at Soldier Field (I doubt anyone cares though).
That would be as exciting as watching grass grow. The benefit, of course, is that it gives the nation one more chance to see a lesser Big Ten team knock off an overy hyped pretender. That should help occasionally purge them from the national championship game and the almost guaranteed destruction that follows by the end of the 1st quarter.
Interesting comment about ownership -- my nephew, Jim, works in TV for the Big 10 network.
Quote from: MUDish on May 05, 2009, 07:09:17 PM
Not that it matters to anyone here, but I've been told it's "a lock" that if there is ever a Big 11 conference title football game, it'll be played at Soldier Field (I doubt anyone cares though).
Soldier would be a great venue. I'm surprised though that they would hold it outdoors in December, I would think Lucas Oil would be the preferred spot from an event-staging perspective.
Mainly because there would never be the threat of IU being in it, and having a home filed advantage ;D ;D