Rutgers in the lead to be Big Ten's 12th member??

U2Gopher

Well-known member
Joined
Nov 28, 2008
Messages
2,059
Reaction score
1,578
Points
113
An article on CBS Sportsline thinks the Big 10 could make a decision no later the summer's end. It contained a link to an article in the Chicago Tribune which outlines that Rutgers best meets all of the Big 10's criteria for new membership. The Tribune article seems to make sense in making the case for the Scarlet Knights, but the thought of Rutgers just doesn't excite me one bit. I'd rather have Mizzou. Anyway, here is the link......

http://www.chicagotribune.com/sports/college/chi-big-ten-expansion-side-mar02,0,4339535.story
 

I hear ya U2 about Mizzou. They have a greater tradition in basketball and football, the wheels of any great conference, but the NYC tv market beckons. I absolutely love Mizzou's new fieldhouse. I would make the drive to Columbia to see basketball and football. But the article in the Trib makes some good points in favor of Rutgers. Honestly, I have a feeling come fall, Rutgers, Syracuse and Pittsburgh will become members of the Big Ten.
 

No juice with Rutgers coming, if they do. Its like signing a two star player when there are 3 and 4's going everywhere else...
 

Rutgers, Pitt and Mizzou would be huge as the three added....three new markets and great traditions...
 

Rutgers, Pitt and Mizzou would be huge as the three added....three new markets and great traditions...

Pitt is second fiddle to Penn St in both Pittsburgh and Philly.

NO ONE cares about Rutgers (or college football in general) in the NYC market.

Penn St is as close to the (L)east coast as we should get. Please no more friggin' coastie teams.

Already have a presence in STL with U of I, but Mizzou would help make that stronger and also provide some KC marketshare. Also, I like the natural rivalry with Illinois and the fact that they are nearly always decent in both major sports.
 


Don't see why we would go after Rutgers unless everyone else turns us down, but considering people around Mizzou and Nebraska seem interested, I can't think that'd be the case.

I'd take pretty much any of the others school mentioned over Rutgers.
 

NO ONE cares about Rutgers (or college football in general) in the NYC market.

The fans that do care about football are Syracuse or Penn State fans anyway. Rutgers adds nothing.
 

Just curious. Is there any history to big ten expansion pre PSU other than MSU? It would be interesting to know if for example Nebraska was ever offered membership in the first half of the century, etc.
 

Just curious. Is there any history to big ten expansion pre PSU other than MSU? It would be interesting to know if for example Nebraska was ever offered membership in the first half of the century, etc.

Here's Wikipedia's take on the history of Big Ten expansion. A lot of the names we have heard lately have been mentioned and/or explored before.

"The conference was again known as the Big Nine after the University of Chicago decided to de-emphasize varsity athletics just after World War II. Chicago discontinued its football program in 1939 and withdrew from the conference in 1946 after struggling to gain victories in many conference matchups. It was believed that one of several schools, notably Pittsburgh, Nebraska, Michigan State, Marquette, Notre Dame, and Iowa State would replace Chicago at the time.[9] On May 20, 1949,[8] Michigan State ended the speculation by joining and the conference was again known as the Big Ten. The Big Ten's membership would remain unchanged for the next 40 years.
The conference’s official name throughout this period remained the Intercollegiate Conference of Faculty Representatives. It did not formally adopt the name Big Ten until 1987, when it was incorporated as a not-for-profit corporation. In 1990, the Big Ten universities voted to expand the conference to 11 teams, and extended an invitation to Penn State, which it accepted.[10] When Penn State joined in 1990, it was decided that the conference would continue to be called the Big Ten, but its logo was modified to reflect the change; the number 11 is disguised in the white areas of the traditionally blue "Big Ten" lettering.

Following the addition of previously independent Penn State, efforts were made to encourage the University of Notre Dame, the last remaining non-service academy independent, to join the league. Early in the 20th century, Notre Dame had sought official entry into the Big Ten but was never extended an invitation.[11] However, in 1999, both Notre Dame and the Big Ten entered into private negotiations concerning a possible membership that would include Notre Dame. Although the Notre Dame faculty senate endorsed the idea with a near unanimous vote, the ND board of trustees decided against joining the conference and Notre Dame ultimately withdrew from negotiations. [2]

The University of Texas also approached and entered into discussions with the Big Ten in the 1990s. UT was keen to upgrade it's academic profile and depart the SWC and desperate to seek affiliation with the Pac 10.

"Texas wanted desperately the academic patina that the Pac 10 yielded," recalls UT President Robert Berdahl,[12] who went on to serve as chancellor at Pac-10 member California-Berkeley. "To be associated with UCLA, Stanford and Cal in academics was very desirable."

Still, expansion in the Pac-10 depended on unanimous approval of the member schools. And Stanford, which had long battled UT in athletics as well as academics[13], objected. For UT, the way west never materialized.

UT next approached the Big Ten. Having added Penn State in 1990, the Big Ten was now made of universities that, in the view of UT officials, matched UT's profile — large state schools with strong academic reputations. Berdahl liked the fact that all 11 conference members belonged to the American Association of Universities.

Yet, distance remained a disadvantage. Iowa, the closest Big Ten school to Austin, was 856 miles away.

But after adding Penn State in 1990, Big Ten officials had put a four-year moratorium on expansion. Although admitting interest, Big Ten bosses ultimately rejected UT's overtures.

Around 1993, it was also explored by the league to add Kansas, Missouri, and Rutgers, or other potential schools to create a 14-team league with two divisions.[14] These talks died when the Big 8 Conference merged with former Southwest Conference members to create the Big 12."
 



This is all just a series of bluffs, bluff-calling, false jockeying, and rumor spreading.

Its purpose? To finally get the 800 pound Catholic gorilla in the room into its rightful place, the Big Ten conference.
 

This is all just a series of bluffs, bluff-calling, false jockeying, and rumor spreading.

Its purpose? To finally get the 800 pound Catholic gorilla in the room into its rightful place, the Big Ten conference.


Even though I hate ND, I think they're the best match.
 




Top Bottom