Around the 'Shoe

Although I hate the idea of these super conferences.....or at least did initially when we started discussing them the last 1-2 years.....I don't mind the idea now.

Really when you think about it....those 4 conferences are the ones that have the most history. The programs in them have stood the test of time so to speak. They are the most storied in college football history.

You think of the Pac 10 ( or Pac 12 now) and you immediately have to recognize USC vs. UCLA....and then all the classic Rose Bowl battles with the Big Ten.

Big Ten you obviously think of Ohio State, Michigan, Penn State and now Nebraska....all four of which are in the top 8 most winningest programs in history. Three of the top 5 largest college football venues reside in the Big Ten. In my opinion the Big Ten really doesn't have to expand any more. If the other conferences want to water themselves down with additional middle tier programs by all means let them. At the most...I think the B1G should cut it off at 14 and those 2 additional schools should be good grabs...like the addition of Penn State and Nebraska. Let the other conferences gobble up the Rutgers and the Missouri's (although I wouldn't mind Missouri as an addition if it would have happened).

Of the four the Big 12 has taken the most hits as far as keeping the conference in alignment. You've got Texas and Oklahoma as the anchors. Big time programs with lots of history. Okie State and Missouri have poured it on as of late...and A & M and Texas Tech have contributed.....but really don't hold as much in comparison to the 2 biggies. Losing Nebraska has put a huge dent in the Big 12.

The SEC has put themselves back on the map obviously. Tennessee, Alabama, Auburn, LSU and most recently Florida are all big time programs and have been through all the re-alignments this conference has been through. Oh yeah and Georgia as well.....

Other than that...you have a few schools here and there...Florida State, Miami, Clemson, Georgia Tech maybe, Virginia Tech maybe......but the top of the ACC is Florida State and Miami and they haven't been relevant lately....and also lack the history compared to some of the other schools I've mentioned (with the exception of Clemson maybe).

It's interesting to think about. Wouldn't bother me to see it happen now that I think about it.

Thanks for sharing Chu. Good to see you here, how ya been doing?

Bag tan shuod.go for. Ohi noerthern an d baldwin wallice for aca deemivcs and kewl nam racognizance

You'd have to think where they'd come from and given that all of the BCS schools except ND are in conferences, any future additions would have to be based on secessions, i.e., schools leaving their existing alliances.

In my opinion, the strongest conference--in terms of unity--is the SEC. It's been the conference that's set the pace on expansion as well as football dominance. I think that as a group they're pretty solid. None of them are going anywhere.

#2 is the Pac-12 and that opinion is based strictly on their geography. They're so far removed geographically from the rest of CFB's hierarchy, there's almost nothing for any of them to gain by leaving. Travel costs to play conference foes in eastern half of the country would be prohibitive. So unless Colorado has second thoughts or gets a better offer, I see them sticking together. If they want to grow, they have BYU for starters. And since football's the driver for expansion, Boise State's better than Washington State and Oregon State.

#3 and right up at the top in the "safe" category with the SEC and Pac-12 is the B1G. I don't think anyone will defect but if even if they wanted to, where would they go that's better? The Big 12? The Big Least? The SEC doesn't want B1G schools. They'd rather add Miami or Clemson or FSU.

Next are the ACC and Big 12 but they're both vulnerable to defections. 1/3 of the ACC's members--BC, Miami, VT, Pitt, Syracuse--defected from the Big Least. If they bolted once, the precedent exists that they'll do it again. Already there are rumors that FSU and Clemson could leave for conferences with stronger football reputations, one of which is the Big 12, a conference that's lost 4 teams in the past two years but seems to be finding its footing again. Texas is a bully, Oklahoma is UT's abused spouse--they'll will stick with the Longhorns because they need the state of Texas for recruiting. Who's left? Kansas? K-State? Iowa State? Maybe for basketball but football? No thanks. WVU fits the B1G geographically but not academically.

Then there's the Big Least. Who's even left worth taking? Rutgers? Louisville? Cincinnati? UConn? Maybe Rutgers because they best fit the B1G's profile--New Jersey borders a B1G state, Rutgers is the dominant football-playing school in the state, NJ's become a recruiting hot bed, Rutgers is a respected school academically. But Rutgers lacks star power, though.

So if expansion's coming from anywhere, it'll be ND, Rutgers, or stealing some of the ACC's fringe players, like Pitt.

The pickings, in my opinion, are slim.

I agree.

And what's really messed up about it is the fact that Missouri wanted to join the B10 long before they had even considered the SEC. They were among the first along with Nebraska to seek entry into the B10 but Delany pulled away from the deal.

Nebraska is a football school and nothing more albeit one with great tradition. And the B10 benefitted greatly by inheriting their Heismans, wins, legendary coaches, national titles and consensus All Americans. However, outside of the football element and academics, what did the B1G get? Not much. With Missouri you're getting a quality research academic institution coupled with both quality football and basketball programs. Not to mention the fact that they would've had pre-existing rivalries with the likes of Illinois and Nebraska. And possibly new ones with Iowa as well.
So our loss was clearly the SEC's gain. They gain nothing much by adding Texas A&M--a school with a losing record vs southern conference. Mizzou however has a winning record vs them: something that could have benefitted us greatly.

All that being said, I disagree with you about Rutgers and Louisville. Now I'm not big on adding a school from the midsouth, however, they would bring a reputable basketball program to the conference along with a legendary coach. And the football program is back on an upward trajectory under Charlie Strong as well. Comparable to Cincinnati only again, with a renowned basketball coach.
But while Louisville would be a decent add, Rutgers would be a great one. No the football program isn't a perennial title contender and the men's basketball team certainly isn't. However, the football program is still on the rise as its been over the past six years now. Schiano has left the program in good shape; they're recruiting better than ever and are still in the process of renovating/rebuilding a new stadium. A couple of other plusses is its standing as a research academic institution, a reputable women's basketball program and most of all, access to the NYC market. That latter point alone is enough reason to add it.

I agree--esp on Rutgers.

I've been saying on here for two years now that Rutgers would be a great choice for the B1G for all the reasons you've mentioned. In addition the fact that they're expanding their football stadium.

We should've nabbed Mizzou when they were showing strong interest in joining the B1G two years ago..

At this point--and if the superconferences is what's next, then the B1G has its pick of the B12 North and what's left of the Big East. I say this because it appears that the B12 South, the SEC and ACC are now somewhat aligned in an unspoken manner. Which as you suggested, leaves the Pac-12 all to itself.
Setting up for a North vs South showdown

Tedd Ginn Jr was my favorite buckeye of all time. Everytime he touched the ball there was a chance he was taking it to the house. Talk about exciting ...

History means nothing anymore. We live in an instant gratification society driven by greed, which is why lotteries exist. It's also why Missouri walked away from its century-old Border War rivalry with Kansas and A&M said adios to Texas, and Utah spurned BYU, and Pitt left WVU. No one cares about yesterday much less yesteryear. People only care about tomorrow. This bowl game will be credible in its first year because the two conferences are both credible CFB powerbrokers, especially the SEC.

The SEC/Big 12 bowl agreement comes as no surprise to me. I anticipated some kind of alliance once the B1G and Pac-12 announced theirs, although I personally expected the SEC to partner with the ACC since the Big 12 was on the ropes and there were rumors Texas, TT, Oklahoma and Okie State wanted to join the Pac-12. I don't know that this pact does that much for the SEC but it's a big win and a huge boost in credibility for the Big 12. It also suggests that neither conference covets any of the other conference's teams, whereas it's been suggested they both have cast wanton eyes in the direction of the ACC. As the most geographically diverse conference, aside from the Big Least, I think the ACC is the most vulnerable. I have to believe that if Pitt was tendered an invitation to join the B1G, they'd jump all over it. No way they can be as enamored with playing Duke and Wake Forest in football as they would Ohio State and Penn State, not to mention their current HC's connections to Wisconsin.

Interesting article on ESPN (slow news day as I await the start of the Preakness).

"Odds are we'll probably never see the champions of the Big 12 and SEC play each other in a New Year's Day bowl game. The chances of seeing even one of them playing in the new bowl game are probably slim to none because the champions of those leagues will undoubtedly be participants in the aforementioned four-team playoff. If that happens, the No. 2 teams from those conferences would play in the new bowl game.

Two of college football's strongest conferences just got even stronger. And the ACC, Big East and possibly Notre Dame lost much of their footing in the post-BCS landscape."

Rutgers sucks. Anything east coast sucks in regards to a fit in the midwest. The east coast considers the midwest to be fly-over country. The north east is ivy league centric. Marching bands, weird names like Hoosiers, Sooners, Buckeyes, et al just draw inquisitive looks.

The east coast and particularly NYC doesn't give a hoot about college football, it's a pro sports town. In an interview with the head of the BCS (forget his name) he said it perennially draws the least viewership. The NYC metro market offers the Big Ten package to those who will subscribe so it's penetrated the market already.

Nobody cares about Rutgers, in their one good season they were barely a mention in the local rags, and just a side show on the local sports radio talk shows. Rutgers had to give away almost 40% of their tickets to fill their stadium...this is the kind of fan you guys want to attract? 40%!!!! Their athletic department run in the deficit. They (networks) don't even broadcast their games here.

It's not a top tier program...I don't get you guys. WE have more to offer them then they DO US. And trust me, if Ohio State or Iowa come to Jughandle Jersey you'll hear nothing but crickets out of this market. You can't even take a left turn in Jersey...come on.

I get the ocassional "Go-Bucks" when wearing my bright scarlet clothing in this sea of muted grays out here, but I'll go kicking if they bring in this school.

It's a cultural mis-fit for sure. I'd rather see Oklahoma join, they share the same cultural fit and it would be great to see the Nebraska-Oklahoma rivalry come back from the conference mumbo jumbo that destroyed it.

Iowa...my mind is open, and influenced by living in the NYC metro area for 42 years. I listen to local sports radio all day, I read NYC rags every day. I'm fairly immersed in the vibe of this part of the country. It doesn't make me right but it has formed some of my opinions.

The B1G already has a presence with it's network here, Rutgers won't create an interest or any sort of buzz, they just don't care around here. Mets, Yankees, Nets, Knicks, Rangers, Devils, Islanders, Giants, Jets, St. Johns once in a blue moon, and no...not UCONN at all unless it's part of a national write-up in the NCAA tournament. It's almost over saturation with sports teams here. Alabama gets more coverage than Rutgers. I see plenty of OSU games just from the regional/national programming, Rutgers won't change it one bit IMO.

And dominating Jughandle Jersey's football scene is a push with them having to give away tickets just to get people to show up, and that's almost half the tickets, not a few thousand. They also had to sell commercial rights to their stadium just to get it built. Southside Johnny could fill the stadium better than the Rutgers football team and he just plays bars anymore.

Jughandle Jersey is a strange place, they got their own thing going and certainly possess a certain espirit de corps from the ribbing they take from other areas. They almost have a circle the wagon mentality and are a unique bunch to say the least. It's just a strange fit to me.

I do have a question for you:

You say that the Gophers can't compete with the Vikings and the Wild Cats can't compete with the bears or Bearcats can't compete with the Bengals...

Yet somehow you believe that by adding Rutgers to the B1G...all of a sudden we have the ability to compete with a pro sports city as you put it?

It has been proven that the east market for sports is a pro-town.

How then all of a sudden can you change your tune and say the B1G will capture a market going against: Jets, Giants, Knicks, Mets, Yankees, Rangers and Islanders?

That to me is the only flaw in your argument.