Mailbag question: Big Ten adding another team -- Part 1
GBMW,
What do you guys think of the Big Ten looking at adding another team to the conference? Do you think it is a good idea?
Why does it take so long (12-18 months) to discuss if it is even a good thing or not?
What teams do you think are the best candidates for admission? Do you have a top 5 and how will this effect Michigan and the conference?
Jay S.
---------------------------------------
Thanks for the question.
It only makes sense to pursue a twelfth team and the Big Ten has been looking at this possibility for the past ten years, ever since the famous Notre Dame invitation to play in the Big Ten was rejected.
Having a league structure where all teams do not play each other has never made sense to us, more so even when a twelfth game for football was recently added. We always liked the idea, once the NCAA added the extra game, of incorporating within the schedule more conference games. But the Big Ten does not want the extra league game because of the possibility of teams not making the six game win minimum needed for a team to become bowl eligible, which means more money for the entire conference.
This year the Big Ten did not fill all the bowl positions. Right now the Big Ten has eight bowl-game tie- ins and only filled seven of them. The Detroit "Pizza Bowl" was not filled this year.
Ohio State and Michigan both wanted to add at least one more conference game for football, but the rest of the Big Ten objected, not only for reasons cited above but also because of teams losing money by not having another winnable home game.
In theory it would have been nice to actually add two more conference games and play everybody in the conference. That way it would make for an actual outright champion and eliminate the perception of some league teams having an easier in-conference schedule. Also, if two more league games were added teams would now only have to fill two non-conference games each season. Lately we have seen many teams in the Big Ten have difficulty filling the added game, and in some cases the extra game has been provided by a lower division opponent, which means mostly an easy win, easy money, and another home game.
Many of the other conferences have aligned as two divisions with additional play off revenue and a media bonanza. It is only a matter of time before the Big Ten follows suite.
The twelve to eighteen month time factor is the reality of getting school presidents of all the Big Ten schools to agree on anything. This is a major task that involves logistical wheels grinding at a glacier rate of speed. Such a timeframe would likely involve formulating a list of potential universities, developing a protocol for who should be asked, when a school should be asked, and how much time should be provided before going on to the next school. Then factor in the number of years before a new member could meet all contractual obligations of fulfilling a complete schedule.
We have seen some very unlikely schools being named by many message boards and frankly we cannot agree with many of the wildly tossed out possibilities. We have seen several Texas schools and also Colorado mentioned. We assume the Big Ten is a Midwest league and will remain that way.
One factor that many are not considering is the effect on the other league sports. Too many people are looking at who would benefit the Big Ten in football. That is fine, but the problem is one has to realize that any admission will be based on academic standing and many universities cannot meet the muster the conference presidents will require. The Big Ten is a powerhouse of large public universities in high national standing, the outstanding bastion of higher knowledge known as Northwestern not withstanding.
Do not get us wrong, we would love to have a program like Texas join the Big Ten, but realistically this will not happen. For one thing there is almost certainly no motive or desire to jump the Big Twelve and join the Big Ten. The reality is few universities from afar could support the travel expense needed for all the other league sporting events.
Any admission must not only make financial sense for the new school but also for the entire Big Ten, especially in the current economic climate. Only a few sports (football, basketball, and hockey) actually make money for the university, once all the expenses are paid for and scholarships are funded.
Really the Big Ten is probably looking at a three-year plan right now at a minimum that includes the twelve to eighteen month timeframe mentioned above and then there is usually one or two years needed for a program to get out of all contractual agreements allowing a switch to the Big Ten.
In the next article we will discuss the top five teams that we think could fit and benefit the Big Ten. There will always be discussions regarding who is the best fit or who would benefit the Big Ten the most. So come back later to view those teams and see if you agree with the line of thought.
Written by GBMW Staff
Go Blue -- Wear Maize!
3 comments:
May I offer two constructive criticisms of your piece?
Your statement about "The Big Ten did not fill all the bowl positions" is very misleading. While you are correct that the Detroit bowl game does not have Big Ten representation, you omit the fact that - once again - the Big Ten placed two teams in the BCS and that eight Big Ten teams DID qualify for bowl games in 2009. In the history of the BCS, the BCS far outpaces the Pac 10, Big XII, Big East and ACC in earning additional BCS bowl revenues from this system.
For this season, the Big Ten traded a bowl payout game of $750,000 per team, for a 2nd BCS payout of $4.5 million. Since your statement about the B10 not filling bowl slots came after a comment about "making more money for the conference" , I think this was an important fact that was left out.
Another point that would be worth adding to the "play more conference games" argument is that every time you play a conference game, a Big Ten team loses a game. For the teams that can play so called "cupcakes" and then go 2-6 in the Big Ten, that would put even more bowl slots in jeopardy. A round-robin B10 schedule (with the current makeup of the conference) would require a team to win a minimum of 4 conference game per season in order to be bowl eligible. I believe that you would automatically lose at least one, if not two, B10 bowl eligible teams per season.
But.... when you are talking about losing bowl payouts of $750,000 (Little Ceasars) and $1.2m (Insight) - you are talking about pocket change for the conference after expenses.
Which obviously brings the discussion around to what I am sure is part 2 of your blog on this topic....Money. Big Ten Expansion - especially coming on the heels of the financial windfall that is the Big Ten Network has to completely re-frame the discussion of expansion.
Kudos for offering the little realized other side of expansion - increased travel costs for Olympic sports and how adding a Rutgers or Missouri road game for soccer and cross country teams on the other end of the conference is a REAL expense that athletic directors are loathe to pay when looked at as a single line item in an individual sports annual budget.
The Pizza Pizza bowl was set up for Michigan this year and they could not muster another win.
Very disappointing.
Yea the Big Ten will not add another conference game because of money and they want as many teams in bowl games as possible even if that means the product on the field is not as good.
They would rather have easy wins, playing div2 schools and collecting money then seeing who the best in the Big Ten is by playing everybody.
Anonymous (1) here.
Not to nit-pick, but I don't think think that had Michigan been bowl eligible, that they would have fallen to the Little Ceasar's Bowl in Detroit. At 6-6 Michigan would certainly have been picked by a bowl over Minnesota and probably over Michigan State as well. If I remember the pecking order, my guess is that Michigan would have been destined for the Alamo or the Insight long before Detroit got to pick.
If I may also correct erroneous information made in my first post. the Big Ten had 7 bowl eligible teams, not 8. (Michigan, IU, Purdue and Illinois all stay home this December) But the overall point remains, the only reason that all slots were not filled was because the B10 got two teams in the BCS. Had only OSU gone to the Rose Bowl, everyone would have moved down one slot and Minnesota goes to Detroit.
Post a Comment