Brewster supports Big Ten expansion

Donate To GopherHole
dpodoll68

dpodoll68

Elite Poster
Joined
Nov 24, 2008
Messages
19,275
Reaction score
884
Points
113
"I am definitely for the addition of another team, and it would be great to bring in a team from the Eastern market," Tim Brewster, the Minnesota head coach, said from his office yesterday. "I certainly believe Rutgers is a tremendous candidate, one that obviously makes sense." Brewster was not stumping for Rutgers, although the Phillipsburg native is more familiar with the growth of the football program in Piscataway than most of his counterparts. He was pushing for a 12th team, a topic he said the conference coaches informally discussed at their meetings this month. Most agree it is a necessary step to stay competitive with the Big 12 and the SEC, leagues that already have a lucrative championship game at the end of the season.

Source: Newark Star-Ledger
 

He used only one "tremendous" or "outstanding" in his quote. That's pretty good for Brewspeak.
 


Rutgers is a joke

Rutgers is thought of as a joke from other Big East schools. Rutgers gets no or little media attention in New York City and has a horrible basketball program. Rutgers has made a little noise in football because the Big East is down but once their coach leaves for greener pastures their program will be bad again. I don't think they bring anything to the B10/11.
 

Not this again. It's Notre Dame or nothing else.

Nebraska would be allowed in but they won't leave the Big12 and the rivalries they have there.
 


at the bar said:
Rutgers is thought of as a joke from other Big East schools. Rutgers gets no or little media attention in New York City and has a horrible basketball program. Rutgers has made a little noise in football because the Big East is down but once their coach leaves for greener pastures their program will be bad again. I don't think they bring anything to the B10/11.
Click to expand...

The facts:

1. The Big Ten is only secondarily an athletic conference--and the secondarily is a distant second where priorities are concerned.

2. The Big Ten is comprised entirely of major research universities. Research is the primary function of the BT; and in monetary terms ten times as important as athletics, and much, much more so in terms of the essential purposes of university education.

3. Of the schools mentioned as potential BT members, only Pitt & Rutgers are major research universities--and therefore the only ones that would be considered.

4. The BT long ago offered membership to the U of Texas-Austin; the legislature & state governing board would not allow UTA to accept (have to stay in the same conference with TS A&M). Pitt isn't a desirable 12th school because of the presence of Penn State, given that rust-belt Pennsylvania has chronic state financial problems and is not in a position to double up on the appropriations necessary for a second state support of BT programs, shared research, etc.

5. That leaves Rutgers, which may someday be admitted as a 12th BT member---but don't expect it any time soon. Rutgers certainly would accept, and the affluent State of NJ has both the political support and the financial means to expand an already underway upgrading of Rutgers as a major research university.

The BT likes the idea of becoming a presence in the greater NYC metro area, and why not? The primary center of foundations & philanthropic organizations, it is the nation's financial & communications center, and the home or major offices of numerous corporations to partner potentially with the BT & member schools in large-scale research projects, shared patents, etc.

(Maybe) some time in the next decade or so Rutgers will become the 12th BT athletic program. It is just as likely that Carnegie-Mellon and/or Case-Western Reserve and/or Washington of St Louis or all three will be invited in as non-athletic participants to increase the scope & prestige of the BT as an association of major research universities.

This is a cut and paste from another thread on another board in a galaxy far, far away. There are some interesting observations and the author is one I've found to be fairly knowledgeable.
 

DarrenTheGreek said:
Nebraska would be allowed in but they won't leave the Big12 and the rivalries they have there.
Click to expand...

Nebraska will not be invited into the Big Ten.

Any team from the Big 12 would bolt if given the opportunity to move to the Big Ten. The papers would be signed and sent back by fax in 30-minutes. But the only school they would be interested in is Texas, and that presents obvious geographic problems.

Notre Dame does not currently meet AAU standards, but they are getting closer every year.
 

Goldmember said:
Nebraska will not be invited into the Big Ten.

Any team from the Big 12 would bolt if given the opportunity to move to the Big Ten. The papers would be signed and sent back by fax in 30-minutes. But the only school they would be interested in is Texas, and that presents obvious geographic problems.

Notre Dame does not currently meet AAU standards, but they are getting closer every year.
Click to expand...

Not just geographic problems...Texas fans would have a cow (he he) if anything got in the way of the A&M or Oklahoma games.
 

I don't see why Misouri would not be interested. I know about the rivarly with KU, but much as they currently do with Illinois they could still play each other in basketball and most years in football. The Big 12 North has become a football wasteland and poor step-sister. I would think they'd welcome the chance to get out and come to a conference where they could instantly be competative in both sports.

Rutgers brings nothing to the table except a warm body to enabable a stupid football championship game, which I'm opposed to. The only advantage they would bring is a foothold into the NY media market, and we already have that with Penn State. Rutgers would not bring any meaningful increase. Thier basketball program sucks and would drag us down, and thier football program is vastly over-rated due to one good season 3 years ago in a bad conference.
 



howeda7 said:
I don't see why Misouri would not be interested. I know about the rivarly with KU, but much as they currently do with Illinois they could still play each other in basketball and most years in football. The Big 12 North has become a football wasteland and poor step-sister. I would think they'd welcome the chance to get out and come to a conference where they could instantly be competative in both sports.

Rutgers brings nothing to the table except a warm body to enabable a stupid football championship game, which I'm opposed to. The only advantage they would bring is a foothold into the NY media market, and we already have that with Penn State. Rutgers would not bring any meaningful increase. Thier basketball program sucks and would drag us down, and thier football program is vastly over-rated due to one good season 3 years ago in a bad conference.
Click to expand...

I'm not sure you get the level of hatred for KU. I mean, this stuff goes back to pre Civil War times. It's the 2nd longest running college football rivalry. Imagine having to give up playing Wisky on a yearly basis. Mizzou won't leave the B12.

Here are some examples of the level of rivalry:
Former Kansas football coach Don Fambrough, when urged by doctors to head across the state line to Kansas City, Missouri, for medical attention, exclaimed "I'll die first!"[2]: not to be outdone, Missouri's former basketball coach Norm Stewart would traditionally have his players stay in Kansas City, Missouri, before playing at Kansas, going so far as to require the team bus to buy its gasoline at a Missouri filling station and reprimanding players who ate in Kansas, as he did not want to put any money into Kansas' economy.​
 

Is there some rule which states that you must have an even number of teams to play a championship game? I know the MAC has 13 teams....they have a championship game.

Why dont we just divide it into divisions the way it is for football....
East: Penn St. Mich St. Michigan, Ohio St. Purdue
West:Minnesota, Iowa, wisconsin, Illinois, NWestern, Indiana

With the stipulation that Indiana plays Purdue every year.

This way:
1. the bigwigs get their money for the conference championship game.
2. the Big Ten season could extend later, less of an offseason between last game and bowl game
3. Probably win more bowl games because of the shorter layoff
4. This leaves the door open to Notre Dame to be the sixth in the East (they already play Pur, MSU and Mich every year) if Notre Dame decides to go that route in the future.
5. If Notre Dame does not go that route, this solves some of the conference's problems while they take their time choosing the best school to add as a twelfth

Personally I would rather have a Big12 school (Nebraska) added than a Big East School (Pitt, Syr, or Rutgers), but that is for selfish reasons. If something like that would happen then Indiana could just hop over to the East division.
 

The rule is you must have at least 12 teams to play a conference championship game.
 

mr. gopher: use your head a little bit about that kind of a split.

East: Penn State, MSU, Michigan, Ohio State, Purdue and then the possibility of notre Dame?

Why the heck would that line up need the West with Minnesota, Indy, Illinois, iowa, wisky and NU?

In the modern era of Big Ten Football how many BT Championships have PSU, MSU, Michigan and Ohio State won? By far the majority. You can't stack Michigan and OSU in the same division...it would be very anti-climatic. I know that many seasons it would match OSU and Michigan last regular season game of big Ten play and then in a play-off situation might provide a rematch of that game in the championship game. However, IF I were a Michigan or an OSU fan, I would never go for a Divisional alignment in the same side of the equation as my most bitter rival and foe. Right now, that Michigan/OSU season ending matchup it among the most storied matchups in college football.

And the Western Division would need a real "NAME" or two as members of that division to make it a legit "championship" of the Big Ten event.

Maybe West: Michigan, Minnesota, wisky, iowa, Illinois and NU. East: OSU, PSU, Indy, Purdue, MSU and the additional team...(Notre Dame or whom ever the 12th team may be.) That would be more equal in name brand recognition and would probably insure that two top ten teams would play for the championship.

You can't stack all the traditionally toughest teams in ONE division or the other. Split them. Then sell the heck out of the championship game.
 



4starrecruit said:
mr. gopher: use your head a little bit about that kind of a split.

East: Penn State, MSU, Michigan, Ohio State, Purdue and then the possibility of notre Dame?

Why the heck would that line up need the West with Minnesota, Indy, Illinois, iowa, wisky and NU?

In the modern era of Big Ten Football how many BT Championships have PSU, MSU, Michigan and Ohio State won? By far the majority. You can't stack Michigan and OSU in the same division...it would be very anti-climatic. I know that many seasons it would match OSU and Michigan last regular season game of big Ten play and then in a play-off situation might provide a rematch of that game in the championship game. However, IF I were a Michigan or an OSU fan, I would never go for a Divisional alignment in the same side of the equation as my most bitter rival and foe. Right now, that Michigan/OSU season ending matchup it among the most storied matchups in college football.

And the Western Division would need a real "NAME" or two as members of that division to make it a legit "championship" of the Big Ten event.

Maybe West: Michigan, Minnesota, wisky, iowa, Illinois and NU. East: OSU, PSU, Indy, Purdue, MSU and the additional team...(Notre Dame or whom ever the 12th team may be.) That would be more equal in name brand recognition and would probably insure that two top ten teams would play for the championship.

You can't stack all the traditionally toughest teams in ONE division or the other. Split them. Then sell the heck out of the championship game.
Click to expand...

First of all, I did use my head.

I split the conference how I did because that's how the rivalries lie (with the exception of splitting Pur and Ind). You think that having OSU and Mich NOT play every year is a good thing??? You think that MSU and Mich NOT play every year is a good thing???

Are you saying that you would rather have the annual OSU-Mich championship game (which you are so certain will happen in your model). Why not send OSU to another conference entirely?? Then, mr 4stars, you can have your orgasmic MICH-OSU national championship game!!!! What a glory that would be for you. After all, these are the only programs that get your Big Ten Wins.

NO. Thats splitting OSU and Mich is a horrible idea. Splitting Mich and MSU is almost as bad. I didn't stack the divisions that way, geography and tradition did. Can you imagine a year without the OSU-Mich game??? ESPN would have nothing to talk about all year!! :)

Are you saying that you would have our most bitter rivals, wiscy, be on the other side, simply because they are our bitter rivals?? What sense does that make?? Rivals are rivals because they fight bitterly over the same division, the same conference.

And as for your 'name' idea, thats why, if i had my way and nobody could stop me, I would dump Penn St (sorry) add Notre Dame, and add Nebraska. But thats me being selfish.
 


What I said is that some years you might have the Michigan/OSU final regular season game followed up by a rematch of Michigan vs OSU for the championship game. As long as a program would have the ability to play a rivalry game, why would that team have to be in the same division? With only 6 teams in each division, you could play the five other teams from your own division and 3 games against teams from the other division.

Year in and year out, the top teams in the Big Ten have been OSU, Michigan, PSU and rather often MSU has a very competetive team. Historically, Purdue has also been competetive. You know, why would those teams even need the other division of the Big Ten other than to beat up on? They would have the tv market.

The strength of the Big Ten has been that there are teams like OSU, Michigan, PSU, MSU and Purdue. Therefore, the Conference gets recognition even during the years of the Big TWO...Little EIGHT situation that was so often the case for the better part of the past half centruy. Once in a while wisky and iowa have played better during the past quarter of a century. It has been since the mid to late 1960's since Minnesota has really been a player. When iowa and wisky and NU and more recently Illinois had a piece of the the title, they tied OSU and or others for the top spot.

Perhaps the Big Ten should just forget about two divisions and just play a round robin schedule with every team playing every other team in the conference. skip the ooc games and play all conference games. Add another team and have 11 conference games and one ooc game. Have a true champion the regular old way...by having to beat all the other teams in the conference.
 

My money is on Syracuse

They play us, Northwestern and Penn State this year and Joe Pa is stumping for them.
 

4starrecruit said:
Perhaps the Big Ten should just forget about two divisions and just play a round robin schedule with every team playing every other team in the conference. skip the ooc games and play all conference games. Add another team and have 11 conference games and one ooc game. Have a true champion the regular old way...by having to beat all the other teams in the conference.
Click to expand...

Thats a horrible idea. It is and you know it. You even know all the reasons why it is a horrible idea. Why do you say things like that? This is why so many people want you out of here.
 

4starrecruit said:
What I said is that some years you might have the Michigan/OSU final regular season game followed up by a rematch of Michigan vs OSU for the championship game. As long as a program would have the ability to play a rivalry game, why would that team have to be in the same division? With only 6 teams in each division, you could play the five other teams from your own division and 3 games against teams from the other division.

Year in and year out, the top teams in the Big Ten have been OSU, Michigan, PSU and rather often MSU has a very competetive team. Historically, Purdue has also been competetive. You know, why would those teams even need the other division of the Big Ten other than to beat up on? They would have the tv market.

The strength of the Big Ten has been that there are teams like OSU, Michigan, PSU, MSU and Purdue. Therefore, the Conference gets recognition even during the years of the Big TWO...Little EIGHT situation that was so often the case for the better part of the past half centruy. Once in a while wisky and iowa have played better during the past quarter of a century. It has been since the mid to late 1960's since Minnesota has really been a player. When iowa and wisky and NU and more recently Illinois had a piece of the the title, they tied OSU and or others for the top spot.

Perhaps the Big Ten should just forget about two divisions and just play a round robin schedule with every team playing every other team in the conference. skip the ooc games and play all conference games. Add another team and have 11 conference games and one ooc game. Have a true champion the regular old way...by having to beat all the other teams in the conference.
Click to expand...

Why do you capitalize THINGS that shouldn't BE, and NOT CAPITALIZE things that should?
 

Louisville

I think the Big Ten should add try to add Louisville,they are good in football and great in basketball.


East

Penn State,Ohio State,Michigan,Michigan State,Louisville,Indiana

West

Minnesota,Purdue,Illinois,Northwestern,Wisconsin,Iowa.
 

4starrecruit said:
Perhaps the Big Ten should just forget about two divisions and just play a round robin schedule with every team playing every other team in the conference. skip the ooc games and play all conference games. Add another team and have 11 conference games and one ooc game. Have a true champion the regular old way...by having to beat all the other teams in the conference.
Click to expand...

Yeah, right. Because that has worked sooooo well for the Pac Ten hasn't it?

By the way the media covered last season you would have thought the Pac-Ten was about to lose its BCS-conference status (even though they easily had the best overall team in the country).

The SEC/ Big 12 model is clearly the way to go. Have two good teams in each division beat-up on chumps all season and make em' look like Gods for a major match-up in December. Thats what ESPN likes and the public has fallen dutifully in-line. By almost every measure the Big Ten Pac Ten and SEC are the Top 3 football conferences. But the ACC and Big 12 (especially) have used the 2x6 alignment very well to appear more relevant.

With as well as this has worked for the losely cobbled-together Big 12 in gaining respect from the public, anything else would just be stupidity.
 

I honestly think that playing every team in the Big Ten would be a GREAT idea! It would produce a true champion. It would be the stuff that legends are built upon. The march to the championship. The BIG TEN SURVIVER SERIES. From NU to the SHOE! From late summer to the fall, the Big Ten Conference plays them ALL. No byes. No excuses. The ULTIMATE TRUTH...The ULTIMATE CHAMPIONSHIP SERIES. May the BEST team win it all! Before a champion can be crowned, they must play a complete round. The truth can only be known when every team in the conference has played every other team in the conference.
 

4starrecruit said:
I honestly think that playing every team in the Big Ten would be a GREAT idea! It would produce a true champion. It would be the stuff that legends are built upon. The march to the championship. The BIG TEN SURVIVER SERIES. From NU to the SHOE! From late summer to the fall, the Big Ten Conference plays them ALL. No byes. No excuses. The ULTIMATE TRUTH...The ULTIMATE CHAMPIONSHIP SERIES. May the BEST team win it all! Before a champion can be crowned, they must play a complete round. The truth can only be known when every team in the conference has played every other team in the conference.
Click to expand...

You realize this could wind up giving teams like Mich, Pur, MSU, Ill, and Iowa zero room for flexibility because of their out of conference rivalries? All this does is isolate the conference. Its not feasable, not attractive to recruits (esp. ones not from big ten states).

Listen, I would be all for playing every team in the conference, yes, it would be epic and glory filled, blah, blah, blah, but there simply are not enough weeks in the college football season. If we played 17 weeks like the pros, maybe, but otherwise there is simply no way it will happen.
 

As the Big Ten currently stands, that would be a 10 game schedule for each team. It would leave room for 2 ooc games. Why not challenge the concept that only splitting into two divisions and then having a "conference championship game" produces a champion? Why not maximize the PAC 10 and the BIG TEN by having each conference produce a TRUE champion and playing the Rosebowl Game for a TRUE championship between two great conferences? TAKE BACK THE ROSEBOWL. The true champions from the PAC 10 vs the true champions of the Big Ten. That would have quite a market value. It would diminish the whole wimpy bcs. Call it the True Conference Championship Series...(TCCS). Challenge other conferences to do the same thing.

What's the point in keeping conference standings if every team in the conference doesn't play every other team in the conference? There is something very dishonest about naming a champion when all the teams have not played each other.
 

Seems like the trouble with sorting out the two divisions is because we label them east and west. Is their another way we could do that without using east, west , north or south? Then you don't need to worry about if certain schools don't match their directional names. I don't have any real ideas, just tossing this out there. Since the Big Ten has been known as a rough and tumble conference both in football and basketball, how about the Black & Blue divisions?
 


Donovan said:
Seems like the trouble with sorting out the two divisions is because we label them east and west. Is their another way we could do that without using east, west , north or south? Then you don't need to worry about if certain schools don't match their directional names. I don't have any real ideas, just tossing this out there. Since the Big Ten has been known as a rough and tumble conference both in football and basketball, how about the Black & Blue divisions?
Click to expand...

A much better way would be to define the divisions at the end of each year for play the following year. Then put the teams that finish with an odd place (1, 3, 5, 7, 9, 11) into one division and the evens in another. If rivalry teams are not in the same division in a given year, then that is one of the inter-division games they play. The schedule would not be too hard to figure out figure out, but a system would have to be devised so that teams do not go longer than 2 years without playing each other. Most of the time, I would think that teams would often not go more than one year without playing each other, which would be an improvement over the current system.

What I really like about this idea is that it would eliminate the chance of the Big 10 having a division like the Big 12 North. It would also make the schedules about the same strength for every team.
 

WAGopher, i like your idea, but i dont think it would work simply because college football teams set their schedules years ahead of time. For example it would have been impossible for us to find an open date for our games against USC if we didn't even know our conference schedule yet. Also there could be oddities occur like playing six years in a row in Evanston or some such thing.

I do like the randomness of it. It makes things a bit more fair. I just think it would be difficult to pull off.
 

In an ideal world it would be great to have a round-robin conference schedule. The only reason the conference won't go for it is because they would need schedule both non-conference games as home games to have their budgeted 7 gate receipts.

Here's an interesting fact. The last Big Ten team to defeat all the other teams in the conference in the same season was Illinois in 1983. Tim Brewster played on that team.
 

You must log in or register to reply here.



Top Bottom