12 vs 14 or 16 Conference Teams

Donate To GopherHole
S

Southpaw

Active member
Joined
Oct 23, 2009
Messages
412
Reaction score
66
Points
28
While I agree that adding a team to the Big 10 was a move that was long overdue (20 years operating with 11 teams was inexcusable IMO), I'm not so sure that further expansion to 14 or 16 teams is advisable, unless we can entice one of the glamor teams (Notre Dame or Texas) to join. Those two, and those two only, would bring the added prestige and exposure (and therefore, added revenue) to the Big 10 that would make financial sense for the schools in the conference. Does adding the relatively minor increase in exposure a Missouri (St. Louis market), Syracuse (New York market?) or Rutgers (also New York market) would bring to the table make up for smaller piece of the revenue pie each school would recieve? I think not. I may be wrong, but I'm not convinced that the New York market is all that gung-ho for Syracuse and certainly not for Rutgers.

From a football standpoint (and we all know football rules in college sports), the Nebraska addition was a great move by the Big 10 IMO - the Huskers have a rich football tradition and a strong national profile. More importantly, the expansion to 12 teams allows us to go to 2 divisions with a conference playoff at the end (and no more byes during the season because of the odd number of teams).

From a BB standpoint, Nebraska's addition is somewhat underwhelming, but it still beats the status quo - no more empty weekends during the conference schedule due to the odd number of teams.
 

Southpaw said:
While I agree that adding a team to the Big 10 was a move that was long overdue (20 years operating with 11 teams was inexcusable IMO), I'm not so sure that further expansion to 14 or 16 teams is advisable, unless we can entice one of the glamor teams (Notre Dame or Texas) to join. Those two, and those two only, would bring the added prestige and exposure (and therefore, added revenue) to the Big 10 that would make financial sense for the schools in the conference. Does adding the relatively minor increase in exposure a Missouri (St. Louis market), Syracuse (New York market?) or Rutgers (also New York market) would bring to the table make up for smaller piece of the revenue pie each school would receive? I think not. I may be wrong, but I'm not convinced that the New York market is all that gung-ho for Syracuse and certainly not for Rutgers.

From a football standpoint (and we all know football rules in college sports), the Nebraska addition was a great move by the Big 10 IMO - the Huskers have a rich football tradition and a strong national profile. More importantly, the expansion to 12 teams allows us to go to 2 divisions with a conference playoff at the end (and no more byes during the season because of the odd number of teams).

From a BB standpoint, Nebraska's addition is somewhat underwhelming, but it still beats the status quo - no more empty weekends during the conference schedule due to the odd number of teams.
Click to expand...

It sure seems as if Texas wields all the power in the Big 12. Four Texas schools join the Big 8 and the headquarters moves from Kansas City to Irving Texas. Notre Dame can tell a recruit they'll be in the Bronx, New York playing in Yankee Stadium this fall and then later they'll be in Los Angeles, California facing the Trojans of Southern California. Really intriguing to me whether or not they'll cede some power to join the Big Ten
 

I know all the talk right now is about Texas to the Pac 10(12?,16?) but there is a very real chance(IMO) that this is a smoke screen and Texas ends up moving Big 10 come Tuesday/Wednesday-mainly to make sure Texas Tech gets into the Pac 10. In the end money talks, everything else walks. Then Texas A&M ends up in the SEC.

So at that point the B10 is at 13 teams which won't be the final number. If you are Jim Delaney you call Norte Dame and say do you want some of this. I think at that point most of landscape will be shaken out and ND finally realizes they need to join a conference and there will be no better place than the Big 10. So all the sudden the B10 over the course of 3 weeks they will have add 3 NAME football schools(Nebraska, Texas, and ND). If the B10 Commissioner wasn't the most powerful person in college sports before they sure as hell be now.

Who knows the new B10 maybe able to buy out the News Corp share of the BTN or even start a BTN2. So pretty much it's great time to be a B10 fan. We are in the driver seat.
 

mnboiler said:
I know all the talk right now is about Texas to the Pac 10(12?,16?) but there is a very real chance(IMO) that this is a smoke screen and Texas ends up moving Big 10 come Tuesday/Wednesday-mainly to make sure Texas Tech gets into the Pac 10. In the end money talks, everything else walks. Then Texas A&M ends up in the SEC.

So at that point the B10 is at 13 teams which won't be the final number. If you are Jim Delaney you call Norte Dame and say do you want some of this. I think at that point most of landscape will be shaken out and ND finally realizes they need to join a conference and there will be no better place than the Big 10. So all the sudden the B10 over the course of 3 weeks they will have add 3 NAME football schools(Nebraska, Texas, and ND). If the B10 Commissioner wasn't the most powerful person in college sports before they sure as hell be now.

Who knows the new B10 maybe able to buy out the News Corp share of the BTN or even start a BTN2. So pretty much it's great time to be a B10 fan. We are in the driver seat.
Click to expand...

So true about the money. Now Delany did say the other day that Big Ten expansion was going to be put on pause for 12 to 18 months.(IIRC)
 

mnboiler said:
So all the sudden the B10 over the course of 3 weeks they will have add 3 NAME football schools(Nebraska, Texas, and ND).
Click to expand...

I like your optimism!!! :clap: ...although how often has the best case scenario worked out for us lately?
 


Basketball-wise, however the expansion ends up, based on Tubby's scheduling history at Minnesota I'm hoping and praying the number of conference games doesn't get reduced back to 16. Certainly if it's a 12-team league, we're probably looking at going back to 16. What are the odds either of those extra two nonconference games will be an opponent of any note?
 

SelectionSunday said:
Basketball-wise, however the expansion ends up, based on Tubby's scheduling history at Minnesota I'm hoping and praying the number of conference games doesn't get reduced back to 16. Certainly if it's a 12-team league, we're probably looking at going back to 16. What are the odds either of those extra two nonconference games will be an opponent of any note?
Click to expand...

With respect, I don't understand how they would possibly reduce the schedule down to 16 (again). I understand the math works out, but is there any other reason you speculate that? A 16 team schedule with the crappy non-conf. schedule is a total rip for ticket holders.
 

GopherJake said:
A 16 team schedule with the crappy non-conf. schedule is a total rip for ticket holders.
Click to expand...

Bazinga !! The numbers do work out so, like SS, I'm worried that a 16-game conference schedule is a real possibility. A "rip?" - of course, but I'm sure Minnesota would vote for it - that's one or two more crappy (but revenue producing) non-conference opponent that can be added to fill out our home schedule - Minnesota's Athletic Dept has proven over the last several years that it doesn't give a rip for its season ticket holders.
 

Return to 16-game Big Ten schedule

This from Andy Katz suggests it's a very real possibility (see third to last paragraph). Indeed, knowing Tubby's scheduling tendencies at Minnesota to this point, the return to 16 games would likely be a sad day for Gopher basketball season-ticket holders, especially at a time when the U will be re-doing seating assignments like they did with football last year. When they're re-doing seating assignments for basketball (and asking for more money), I would imagine there will be at least a few season-ticket holders wanting to know what the reduction to 16 conference games would mean, scheduling-wise. They'll want to know if they'll be getting more bang for their buck, or less (the more likely of the two).

http://espn.go.com/mens-college-bas...284008/sadler-eyes-recruiting-success-big-ten
 



Southpaw said:
Minnesota's Athletic Dept has proven over the last several years that it doesn't give a rip for its season ticket holders.
Click to expand...

TOTALLY AGREE!!!

If I was the coach and allowed to schedule 18 non-conference games, I think I could get to 20 wins every year.
 

GopherJake said:
TOTALLY AGREE!!!

If I was the coach and allowed to schedule 18 non-conference games, I think I could get to 20 wins every year.
Click to expand...

Not being as cynical as some of you, but every bit as disappointed with our crappy non con home schedule, I think the scheduling has very little to do with Tubby extending what is becoming a pretty meaningless streak. I am completely convinced that the schedule in the past was driven by cash. Guarantee games bring in the bucks. Quality opponents don't.

That having been said, the BTN windfall should ease the pressure on basketball gate revenue for the rest of the department. Thus, we should be able to get a better home non con schedule in the very near future. If we have to shift to the X or Target for a high profile game, so be it. Just get some decent games on the home schedule. The excuses are dwindling.
 

"If we have to shift to the X or Target for a high profile game, so be it. Just get some decent games on the home schedule. The excuses are dwindling."

Amen to that, Holy Man.
 

I always admired Denny Crum, he seemed to have that anywhere, any place, any time attitude. I'm sure there's a ton of variables I'm not familiar with when it comes to scheduling, but I do like what the Illini do when they play that big game against Mizzou in St. Louis.
 



You must log in or register to reply here.



Top Bottom