Sippin' On Purple: An SB Nation Community

Navigation: Jump to content areas:


Pro Quality. Fan Perspective.
Login-facebook
Network Message: 50% Off: CBS/SB Nation Fantasy Baseball

Big Ten Expansion? The Chadnudj Plan

Recently, Barry Alvarez caused a stir by suggesting the Big Ten was seriously exploring expansion to add a 12th team, thus allowing the Big Ten to split into divisions and play a Championship.  See the story here.

Personally, as a fan, I love this idea.  But two problems tend to pop up with this:

  1. Who is your 12th team? Potentially realistic suggestions include Rutgers or Syracuse (to bring in the NYC market), Pitt, Cincinnati, That School From South Bend, and Mizzou.  Less realistic suggestions (for academic, geographic, or athletic reasons) include West Virginia, Kentucky, Louisville, Nebraska, or Texas (seriously? Texas? Really?)
  2. How do you divide the league into divisions without creating a serious "historical competitive imbalance" by placing too many of the big powers (OSU-Michigan-Penn State) in one division, and/or preserve traditional rivalries that teams and fans love?

So, to answer these questions, allow me to present the Chadnudj Plan for Big Ten Expansion -- in which the Big Ten adds Missouri, and divides into North-South divisions, while preserving ALL current protected Big Ten rivalries except one (and that one is Purdue-Northwestern, if you're curious and don't want to read further because this is the only rivalry you care about....what, no takers?)

Star-divide

First, on the teams.....Mizzou ends up being the best choice by default.  I'm going to dispute the whole "Rutgers or Syracuse brings you NYC" meme...I just don't buy it.  NYC is a pro sports town, maybe moreso than Chicago.  I just don't think expanding to New Jersey and Rutgers really improves the Big Ten's media imprint as much as adding a better "fit" (both academically and athletically across all sports) would.

Cincinnati would be a nice choice (it seems strange that Michigan has to split the state with MSU, while OSU gets Ohio to itself), but the small stadium, lack of football tradition, and substandard academics (at least compared to Big Ten standards -- no offense Cincinnati graduates!) dooms them overall.  (Still -- OSU, start scheduling Cincinnati regularly in non-conference....)

Obviously, the top choice has to be That School from South Bend (a school that could, arguably, deliver NYC even moreso than Rutgers) -- it fits academically, athletically, geographically, culturally, and tradition-wise.  Heck, it already has longstanding rivalries with Michigan, Purdue, and Michigan State, each of which would continue unabated if it joined the Big Ten.  (P.S. I think we keep the name, regardless of having 12 teams...it's just too synonymous with the style of football to ever be dropped).

The problem? There is no indication they will join...although that opposition might be thawing somewhat (particularly with the opportunity to get in on guaranteed bowl revenues each season, as well as the Big Ten Network royalties that would only increase if you could market dedicated That School From South Bend programming on the network nationally -- I can almost feel the vomit rising in the back of my throat thinking about "Rudy" marathons being played during the summer doldrums in terms of original Big Ten Network programming).  Plus, as I've always contended -- That School From South Bend is scared to play a "real" football schedule.  Just look at what happened when they lost to Northwestern -- they cancelled the series, and have never agreed to play Northwestern again (yeah, that's right Brian Kelly -- I'm calling your team yellow!)

So where to turn?  Pitt is one option, and further solidifies/pulls in Pennsylvania to Big Ten country, but I'm not seeing it.  It is very close on all degress to Big Ten schools academically according to some data I've seen.  But I'm just not thinking it will happen...I wouldn't be disappointed if it did, but I doubt it works out that way.  There's nothing all that interesting about Pitt joining the conference -- much better to see Penn State take on Pitt as a regular non-conference rival (someone at PSU or Pitt will have to explain to me why this doesn't happen).

The best choice, in my opinion (other than That School from South Bend) is Mizzou.  Great academics and athletics in men's and women's sports, ties/rivalries that already exist with Illinois and Iowa (and, arguably, Northwestern).  It would probably jump from the Big 12 if asked (opening the Big 12 to add TCU? Boise State? Utah?).  The Big Ten schools would be closer to Mizzou than the Big 12 schools, on average (making it easier for their fans to travel).

Plus, and here is the ultimate bonus -- you could add Mizzou to the Big Ten, split into divisions, and only lose ONE Big Ten traditional/protected annual rivalry....as I mentioned before, you'd only lose Northwestern-Purdue (and I think we can agree that would not be a huge loss).

How, you ask?  Simple -- divide the conference into North-South divisions as follows:

North: Iowa, Wisconsin, Minnesota, Northwestern, Michigan, Michigan State

South: Mizzou, Illinois, Indiana, Purdue, Ohio State, Penn State

Every team would play all their division rivals once. (5 games)

Each team would play a "protected" cross-division rival once each year: Iowa-Mizzou, Northwestern-Illinois, MSU-PSU, OSU-Michigan, and then your pick of Minnesota-Purdue, Wisconsin-Indiana or vice-versa. (1 game)

Then, each team would play 2 of the other 5 cross-divisional opponents on a rotating basis (2 games).

8 conference games, and EVERY current protected rivalry protected, while still allowing Mizzou to have its two best geographic rivals (Iowa and Illinois), and ensuring some competitive balance by dividing up the Michigan-OSU-PSU triumvarate.

(For reference's sake, here is the list of Big Ten protected rivalries....notice, the ONLY one that would disappear is NU-Purdue....which I think we'd gladly trade for NU-Wisconsin being an annual game:

Illinois: Indiana, Northwestern
Indiana: Illinois, Purdue
Iowa: Minnesota, Wisconsin
Michigan: Michigan State, Ohio State
Michigan State: Michigan, Penn State
Minnesota: Iowa, Wisconsin
Northwestern: Illinois, Purdue
Ohio State: Michigan, Penn State
Penn State: Michigan State, Ohio State
Purdue: Indiana, Northwestern
Wisconsin: Iowa, Minnesota)

So, have at it fans -- why would this not work?

 

(P.S. I've posted this at a couple sites....just wanted to see people's thoughts....)

0 recs  |  Comment 20 comments

Story-email Email Printer Print

Comments

Display:

i was contemplating whether or not to post something on this

thanks for beating me to it.
i think your theory works out great for the conference, and personally, i’d be all for it. (except the name would have to change. maybe we can make it “the big 11” for the sake of continuing to be bad at math)
the question is whether mizzou would be into it, and quite frankly, i don’t think they would be. if you can get them, and that’s hopefully what the conference tries to do, it would be great.

by Rodger Sherman on Dec 15, 2009 10:27 AM CST reply actions   0 recs

Disagree

There are a number of reasons why Mizzou would JUMP to join the Big Ten:

1) Academics: there is a HUGE step up from the academics in the Big 12 (or lack thereof) and the academics in the Big Ten. When we approached That School in South Bend in 1999, their faculty were ECSTATIC about the possibility of joining the most prestigious academic/athletic conference of research institutions in the country….too bad their boosters held too much sway. Mizzou would get benefits from joining the CIC, access to cross-institutional research/library/exchange benefits, and would look much better academically being affiliated with the Big Ten.

2) Academics. Really. It’s such a big deal, you should mention it twice.

3) Money and exposure: currently, Mizzou has had a number of football games on PAY PER VIEW. Seriously, that’s just sad. Northwestern, meanwhile, thanks to ESPN/ABC/Big Ten Network had EVERY game televised this season. Throw in the huge TV contract with ABC/ESPN and the cross-sports money/exposure from Big Ten Network, as well as the shared bowl payouts (to higher paid bowls, generally, than the Big 12), PLUS a share of a potential Big Ten Championship game, and there are MANY green reasons stacked in large, non-sequential bills why it would make sense for Mizzou to bolt to the Big Ten.

4) Competitive fairness — talk to Mizzou fans, and they’ll tell you — they get screwed by the Big 12 come bowl selection time, in a way that we as Northwestern fans can sympathize. This year, they got leapt over (at 8-4) for the Insight Bowl by Iowa State (at 6-6). They routinely get shafted by the Texas/Oklahoma schools come bowl selection time, and other athletic discussions are routinely slanted the direction of the Red River. Mizzou would get a much fairer shake in the Big Ten — certain rules protect bowls from jumping too much over more-deserving teams, etc., and the programs tend to be a little more unified in other matters.

5) Other sports — the benefits of joining the Big Ten would also extend to other sports. More TV exposure for men’s and women’s basketball, wrestling, volleyball, softball, etc. Plus, Mizzou has a great baseball team, and would probably become much better/dominant moving to the Big Ten.

by Chadnudj on Dec 15, 2009 10:40 AM CST up reply actions   0 recs

Academics

I completely agree with you Chadnudj about academics being really important here; I’m not sure the data you checked out, but what my graduate colleagues around here (PSU) are saying when we discuss expansion is that Mizzou might not make the academic Big10 cut (like Pitt, Nebraska, and almost every other “possibility”). As you said, the academic networking of the B10 can’t be overestimated. I can’t affirm or deny Mizzou’s standing, but that’s general consensus w/ our football-loving grad students. Having said that, I’d love Mizzou.
I also wouldn’t write Rutgers off. Its not simply an “NYC market” but a more widespread east-coast market: Long Island, NJ, Delaware, etc. Even though the program suffered forever, Rutgers has a pretty large fan-base in the region, motivated by their coach, and they certainly make the cut academically. Would they be my top choice? Hell no, but I think that if the B10 expands it goes east. No way the domers join; B10 would never swallow its pride after ND rejected the last offer to join.

by JCubbies on Dec 15, 2009 11:44 AM CST reply actions   0 recs

i dont like the protected cross division rival idea

and if you add missouri its not necessary, just have an east and west division, with NU, Illinois, Wisconsin, Mizzou, Iowa, Minnesota in the west and OSU, MSU, U of M, Purdue, Indiana and Penn State in the east.

i saw someone bring up boise state as the 12th team, which i think would make a lot of sense from a football perspective for both schools. my guess is they wouldn’t meet the academic requirement though.

by Loretta8 on Dec 15, 2009 12:23 PM CST reply actions   0 recs

Look...

…no division setup that puts Michigan-OSU-PSU in the same division will ever happen. Ever.

Big Ten fans love rivalry/trophy games. Preserving those rivalries to the greatest extent possible (which I think my plan does, since it keeps every current annual trophy game, plus ensures some others BECOME annual trophy games) is paramount. By splitting North-South, and guaranteeing one cross-divisional protected rival (P.S. no split happens EVER unless OSU-Michigan is guaranteed an annual game), you get the best of both worlds — relatively balanced divisions, maximum trophy games, and a championship game.

by Chadnudj on Dec 15, 2009 1:15 PM CST up reply actions   0 recs

i dont get it

why cant you put those 3 teams together?

by Loretta8 on Dec 15, 2009 1:33 PM CST up reply actions   0 recs

Because...

…since 1993 when Penn State was added to the conference, there have only been two seasons (1995 — GO CATS! and 1999) where one of those three teams DID NOT win at least a share of the Big Ten.

Plus, there is the attendance/money issue — those three schools also happen to be the three largest stadiums in the conference, and probably the biggest TV draws in the conference. No way you’d put all three in the same division.

by Chadnudj on Dec 15, 2009 1:55 PM CST up reply actions   0 recs

Oops

3 seasons — Illinois won the title alone in 2001.

by Chadnudj on Dec 15, 2009 1:57 PM CST up reply actions   0 recs

Illinois

is in the Big Ten? Really? Why don’t they act like it?

http://www.rivalryesq.com/
The quintessential Big Ten smoking room.

by Bama Hawkeye on Dec 15, 2009 1:58 PM CST up reply actions   0 recs

Not exactly.

The Conference’s name is the Big Ten….Illinois is the eleventh team. The “Big Ten and Little One” if you will….

by Chadnudj on Dec 15, 2009 3:20 PM CST up reply actions   0 recs

not to be that guy

but every other team in the big ten is saying this exact thing about northwestern, no matter how much we win. just sayin.

by Rodger Sherman on Dec 15, 2009 7:53 PM CST up reply actions   0 recs

I think

Big 12 goes after TCU if they lose a team. I think they would love the idea of essentially owning the whole state of Texas. They would probably have to go north though to keep the division balance but I don’t see a quality team north of Oklahoma they would be willing to take in.

"There is no tomorrow for you, and that makes you very dangerous people."--Jimmy McGinty (Gene Hackman) The Replacements

Time is an illusion--lunch time doubly so.

by snowyman28 on Dec 17, 2009 11:54 PM CST up reply actions   0 recs

question:

why can’t the big televen institute a season-ending championship game as is?
in the past ten years, i can’t find a situation where the top two teams in the conference weren’t easily distinguishable by a basis of first, conference record, then overall record, then head-to-head between teams that are still tied. in the 1/5 chance that those two teams tied for second didn’t play in the regular season, they can go by a bunch of tiebreakers: bcs rankings, strength of schedule, or, they could play an extra game.
if the goal here is to institute a big ten championship game, i don’t see why adding a twelfth team would be necessary. if anything, the divisions system makes it more complicated by having less qualified teams in the game.

by Rodger Sherman on Dec 15, 2009 1:39 PM CST reply actions   0 recs

NCAA Rule

only allows a conference championship game if the league has 12 or more members.

http://www.rivalryesq.com/
The quintessential Big Ten smoking room.

by Bama Hawkeye on Dec 15, 2009 1:59 PM CST up reply actions   0 recs

For football only, re-seed the divisions each year

The east/west division idea works for all other sports (and would help travel costs), but for football, the east would be too top heavy. While I believe the NCAA requires two divisions to stage a conference championship game, I do not believe there is any rule prohibiting the conference from changing the divisions each year. The Big Ten could re-seed the divisions each year based on the previous year’s standings — one division gets the first, fourth, fifth, eight, ninth, and twelfth place finishers; the other gets second, third, sixth, seventh, tenth, and eleventh. The BCS tiebreakers could be used to seed teams with the same record.

Using this method and assuming the new team (which we will call “Missouri”) finished 4-4 in conference and 6-6 overall (tied with Michigan State for sixth place), the divisions for next year would be as follows:

Division A:
Ohio State
Wisconsin
Northwestern
Purdue
Minnesota
Indiana

Division B:
Iowa
Penn State
Michigan State
Missouri
Illinois
Michigan

With at least three out of division games and teams having only two permanent rivalry games, the rivalry games could be preserved.

Schedules could be posted almost immediately after the previous season ends, and the teams would have the conference play dates blacked out in advance. It might lead to some quirks regarding the traditional alternating of home and away games between schools, but then again, the current system required NU to play twice in a row in Iowa City.

Personally, however, I am fine staying with the Big 11.

by Buffalo_Joe on Dec 15, 2009 7:22 PM CST reply actions   0 recs

buff joe?

i didn’t know i was in the presence of mediocre wing greatness

by Rodger Sherman on Dec 15, 2009 7:55 PM CST up reply actions   0 recs

I like it

Being an Illinois fan, I’ll ignore the Big 10 and little 1 comment :) I posted these comments on Hail to the Orange, but I think they bear well here too. Personally, while I’m not holding my breath that this will ever happen, I would love to see the expansion happen. And, as much as it pains me to say this, Mizzou is probably the best fit—for all the reasons mentioned above most of all. But I had a couple more ideas. One is that they run a wide open pro-style offense in football. This would bring a breath of fresh air into a conference renown for loving to run the ball down your throat. Look, I know Michigan is trying to change it up with their new offense, but they’re bucking tradition up there and it will probably never work. Bringing in a new team like Missouri, who is on the upswing, would provide a new level of competition to the league. Besides, I would love to see OSU struggle mightily with them—they have real problems against wide open offenses. Two is that it would open a large new recruiting door. Missouri recruits heavily and well in Texas. I would love to open the door to the Big 10 to new, traditionally Big 12 held territories. And the Big 10 network would be a great tool for getting the conference exposure out to that part of the country. Let the Golden Domers proclaim their “independence.” God knows we do better without them. I say grab Missouri and run with it.

"There is no tomorrow for you, and that makes you very dangerous people."--Jimmy McGinty (Gene Hackman) The Replacements

Time is an illusion--lunch time doubly so.

by snowyman28 on Dec 17, 2009 11:50 PM CST reply actions   0 recs

Different division take

If you added Pitt (which makes much more sense IMO than Mizzou), then I think you could make 2 divisions that preserve all natural rivalries, but you’d have to dispense with geographic divisions. Here’s what I think makes sense:

Division A:
Michigan
Michigan St.
Iowa
Minnesota
Wisconsin

Division B:
Indiana
Purdue
Illinois
Northwestern
Penn State
Pitt

Thoughts?

by smorris291 on Dec 18, 2009 1:52 PM CST reply actions   0 recs

Oops

I forgot to add Ohio State to Division A above.

by smorris291 on Dec 18, 2009 1:53 PM CST reply actions   0 recs

Comments For This Post Are Closed


User Tools

Because hip-hop references and Northwestern athletics go together like small academic institutions and gynormous athletic powerhouses.
Start posting about the Wildcats »

Join SB Nation and dive into communities focused on all your favorite teams.

Connect_with_facebook

FanPosts

Community blog posts and discussion.

Recent FanPosts

Photo_1__original__small
Big Ten Tournament Thoughts
Small
Big Ten Picks for Saturday
Small
Northwestern Mid-Season Awards
Small
Previewing the Cats' Big Ten Schedule (Part Two)
Small
Previewing the Cats' Big Ten Schedule (Part One)
Small
Analysis of the Week in Hoops
Small
Another Big Win, But This Has to Stop
Small
Big Ten Expansion? The Chadnudj Plan
Small
Big Ten basketball power rankings: December 14th
Small
Analysis of the Week in Hoops (and what it means for Northwestern)

+ New FanPost All FanPosts >

Overall

8 - 5

Conference

5 - 3


Managers

Walkonlespaul_small Rodger Sherman

Official Partner of CBS Sports