Big Ten and other Conference Expansion

[OregonBuckeye]

The Big Ten has been down for decades.

Then when was it ever "up"? Historically, the SEC is probably the better conference but the Big-10 is still no worse than second.

 

[MililaniBuckeye]

So, yeah, maybe the Big Ten needs a little boost in credibility....

Can't disagree, but adding aother team--regardless of who they are--and implementing a worthless title game isn't the way. Adding perennial independent powerhouse Penn State to the conference didn't help much (definitely not to the degree that the conference hoped they would), so adding one more lesser team and then a title game would water down the conference more than help it.

 

[Best Buckeye]

Agree Mili, everyone thought that adding Penn State would improve the conferences standing, but ten they started losing to eveyone they were supposed to beat.
I guess PS just learned what it took to play against a real conference.
If you took away the perennial losers from over east how much worse would their record be since they joined.

 

[LordJeffBuck]

Then when was it ever "up"? Historically, the SEC is probably the better conference but the Big-10 is still no worse than second.

Here's a list of Big Ten National Champs between 1933 and 1960:

1933 - Michigan (retroactive)
1934 - Minnesota (AP)
1935 - Minnesota (UP)
1936 - Minnesota (AP)
1940 - Minnesota (AP)
1941 - Minnesota (AP)
1942 - Ohio State (AP)
1944 - Ohio State ("civilian")
1947 - Michigan (retroactive)
1948 - Michigan (AP)
1954 - Ohio State (AP)
1957 - Ohio State (UP, FW)
1960 - Minnesota (AP, UPI)

In a 28-year span, that's 8 consenus national champs (1934, 1935, 1936, 1940, 1941, 1942, 1948, 1960); 2 split champs (1954, 1957); 2 retroactive champs (1933, 1947); and one minor champ (1944). Add in NC's for Notre Dame in 1930, 1943, 1946, 1947, 1949, and 1953, plus Michigan State in 1952, and the 1930's, 40's, and 50's were clearly the Golden Age of midwestern football. Now, not so much....

 

[billmac91]

Can't disagree, but adding aother team--regardless of who they are--and implementing a worthless title game isn't the way. Adding perennial independent powerhouse Penn State to the conference didn't help much (definitely not to the degree that the conference hoped they would), so adding one more lesser team and then a title game would water down the conference more than help it.

If you take Penn State out of the Big 10, the reputation is even worse than it is currently. At least PSU beat FSU in an Orange Bowl recently, and they put it on Oregon State.

If you're going to add a 12th team, I'd like it to be Notre Dame. If not them, I'd MUCH rather have Syracuse than Rutgers. New York market and a sleeping program. What happens to Rutgers once Schiano leaves in 2-3 years? Syracuse just needs an innovative coach to reawake a decent program.

 

[matcar]

Let's not fool ourselves here. The Big Ten has been down for decades. Since 1961, the conference has won 3 AP titles (Ohio State in 1968 and 2002; Michigan in 1997) and 3 coaches' titles (Ohio State in 1968 and 2002; Michigan State in 1965). That's 2 outright championships (both courtesy of our beloved Buckeyes) and two split championships in 48 years. Take Ohio State out of the picture (2 outright titles [1968, 2002], 2 minor titles [1961, 1970], 5 second-place finishes in the AP poll [1961, 1973, 1996, 1998, 2006]), and the conference has been downright miserable for five decades (2 split titles, 1 minor titles, 5 AP second-place finishes). In other words, Ohio State has out-performed the rest of the Big Ten combined for the past five decades or so, and there is no end in sight for that trend.

By way of comparison, the SEC has had better success in the last decade alone (Tennessee consensus title in 1998, Florida consensus title in 2006, LSU consensus title in 2007, LSU split [BCS] title in 2003), and one of their teams will likely be favored to win the BCS championship again this season.

So, yeah, maybe the Big Ten needs a little boost in credibility....

+1 million.

I'm glad someone on here finally has the balls to say it with some credibility. Most of the B10 with the exception of the Bucks and a couple years w/ PSU has been a paper tiger.


Take a look at the coaching staffs on B10 teams vs SEC....no wonder the B10 has struggled recently. However, as you've pointed out, this struggle is anything but recent.

 

[matcar]

If you take Penn State out of the Big 10, the reputation is even worse than it is currently. At least PSU beat FSU in an Orange Bowl recently, and they put it on Oregin State.

If you're going to add a 12th team, I'd like it to be Notre Dame. If not them, I'd MUCH rather have Syracuse than Rutgers. New York market and a sleeping program. What happens to Rutgers once Schiano leaves in 2-3 years? Syracuse just needs an innovative coach to reawake a decent program.

No thanks to those. Bring in Texas. Academically, they already want it. Yeah, I get that it's not close geographically, but if we're wishing, UT is a good place to wish considering many at UT already wish they were in the B10.

 

[billmac91]

No thanks to those. Bring in Texas. Academically, they already want it. Yeah, I get that it's not close geographically, but if we're wishing, UT is a good place to wish considering many at UT already wish they were in the B10.

my wish is realistic. It isn't even a remote possibility to bring Texas in.

 

[JBaney45]

+1 million.

I'm glad someone on here finally has the balls to say it with some credibility. Most of the B10 with the exception of the Bucks and a couple years w/ PSU has been a paper tiger.


Take a look at the coaching staffs on B10 teams vs SEC....no wonder the B10 has struggled recently. However, as you've pointed out, this struggle is anything but recent.

What struggles? The Big Ten has been just about dead even with the SEC in bowl games the past 10 years or so. Sure we've not done so well on the Big stage but conference strength has to do with all the teams in ones conference. I mean OSU has had a couple of bad outings against the SEC and we've been stuck with our 2nd (and even 3rd place team) going out to Pasadena to play one of the best coached teams in football right across town from their home stadium.

I don't put much value into a bunch of those old media titles as far as a conference goes anyway, yea there nice for the school that won them, but we barely get an undisputed champion now, let alone before we had a BCS system. The SEC was pretty much Bama beating on everyone in the conference for the longest time. They won a bunch of titles but hell all that indicates is that one team was good enough to run the table back then. We don't know how to measure the strength of conferences now, theres no way anyone had any idea back then when most people probably didn't even get to see a vast majority of teams play

 

[Steve19]

Here's a list of Big Ten National Champs between 1933 and 1960:

1933 - Michigan (retroactive)
1934 - Minnesota (AP)
1935 - Minnesota (UP)
1936 - Minnesota (AP)
1940 - Minnesota (AP)
1941 - Minnesota (AP)
1942 - Ohio State (AP)
1944 - Ohio State ("civilian")
1947 - Michigan (retroactive)
1948 - Michigan (AP)
1954 - Ohio State (AP)
1957 - Ohio State (UP, FW)
1960 - Minnesota (AP, UPI)

In a 28-year span, that's 8 consenus national champs (1934, 1935, 1936, 1940, 1941, 1942, 1948, 1960); 2 split champs (1954, 1957); 2 retroactive champs (1933, 1947); and one minor champ (1944). Add in NC's for Notre Dame in 1930, 1943, 1946, 1947, 1949, and 1953, plus Michigan State in 1952, and the 1930's, 40's, and 50's were clearly the Golden Age of midwestern football. Now, not so much....

It was the golden era of the Midwest as the central hub of the industrial economy as well. And that is the thing that worries me about Big Ten football.

 

[LordJeffBuck]

No thanks to those. Bring in Texas. Academically, they already want it. Yeah, I get that it's not close geographically, but if we're wishing, UT is a good place to wish considering many at UT already wish they were in the B10.

Texas would work for me. I wouldn't mind seeing the Bucks and the Horns battle 5 or 6 times every decade. And for those who care about conference balance, Texas would be the "anchor team" in the West division, to balance Ohio State and Penn State in the east.

 

[kippy1040]

It was the golden era of the Midwest as the central hub of the industrial economy as well. And that is the thing that worries me about Big Ten football.

This quote and post says alot. You hit the nail right on the head. The economy has alot to do with everything. Careers and job opportunitys are lost in the midwest. I was forced to leave Ohio in 89 to keep my position with the railroad. Florida Georgia and other states in the south region are plentiful if you really want to work.

Up in Ohio we had so many industries with jobs in the steel mills and railroads but now all that is gone. A good economy has a tremendous effect on where students are going to school. Ohio State may be an exception to the rule. They are still a haven for great students to come and play and get a great education as well. How long this will continue can olny be measured be the growth of the economy(if it ever can reverse it self)in the great state of Ohio.

 

[sepia5]

This quote and post says alot. You hit the nail right on the head. The economy has alot to do with everything. Careers and job opportunitys are lost in the midwest. I was forced to leave Ohio in 89 to keep my position with the railroad. Florida Georgia and other states in the south region are plentiful if you really want to work.

Up in Ohio we had so many industries with jobs in the steel mills and railroads but now all that is gone. A good economy has a tremendous effect on where students are going to school. Ohio State may be an exception to the rule. They are still a haven for great students to come and play and get a great education as well. How long this will continue can olny be measured be the growth of the economy(if it ever can reverse it self)in the great state of Ohio.

I think the economy has more to do with in state and regional recruiting than anything, and even there the effect is minimal. When families have to move away to find work, your in-state, in-region recruiting pool also diminishes somewhat. But, the economy can't be THAT much of a factor on the recruiting front. Places like Alabama, Louisiana, and Florida aren't exactly booming right now, and yet look at the recruits the programs in those states have pulled in, and their respective recent success. When you're talking big-time college football, a popular, competent head coach that can provide stability has MUCH more to do with recruiting prowess and program success than local or regional economies.

 

[Buckeye86]

Up in Ohio we had so many industries with jobs in the steel mills and railroads but now all that is gone. A good economy has a tremendous effect on where students are going to school.

I highly doubt that this is the case. And even if it were the case, I still find it pretty absurd to link the economic situation in a state with college football success. The south represents most of the poorest states in the nation, by your estimation they should never do well at football in most southern states, which obviously is not the case.

 

[kippy1040]

I think the economy has more to do with in state and regional recruiting than anything, and even there the effect is minimal. When families have to move away to find work, your in-state, in-region recruiting pool also diminishes somewhat. But, the economy can't be THAT much of a factor on the recruiting front. Places like Alabama, Louisiana, and Florida aren't exactly booming right now, and yet look at the recruits the programs in those states have pulled in, and their respective recent success. When you're talking big-time college football, a popular, competent head coach that can provide stability has MUCH more to do with recruiting prowess and program success than local or regional economies.

Good points here Sepia and one other factor that can be illustrated here is that since being here in the south, i have noticed that alot of baseball is at the youth levels continue to be played year round down here in florida. That means alot also. And also high school football has spring drills in march and april where as up in Ohio that is non-existant. It may not mean alot in regards to the economy but the others have alot to do with the type of players down here in the south