• Follow us on Twitter @buckeyeplanet and @bp_recruiting, like us on Facebook! Enjoy a post or article, recommend it to others! BP is only as strong as its community, and we only promote by word of mouth, so share away!
  • Consider registering! Fewer and higher quality ads, no emails you don't want, access to all the forums, download game torrents, private messages, polls, Sportsbook, etc. Even if you just want to lurk, there are a lot of good reasons to register!

Big Ten and other Conference Expansion

Which Teams Should the Big Ten Add? (please limit to four selections)

  • Boston College

    Votes: 32 10.2%
  • Cincinnati

    Votes: 19 6.1%
  • Connecticut

    Votes: 6 1.9%
  • Duke

    Votes: 21 6.7%
  • Georgia Tech

    Votes: 55 17.6%
  • Kansas

    Votes: 46 14.7%
  • Maryland

    Votes: 67 21.4%
  • Missouri

    Votes: 90 28.8%
  • North Carolina

    Votes: 39 12.5%
  • Notre Dame

    Votes: 209 66.8%
  • Oklahoma

    Votes: 78 24.9%
  • Pittsburgh

    Votes: 45 14.4%
  • Rutgers

    Votes: 40 12.8%
  • Syracuse

    Votes: 18 5.8%
  • Texas

    Votes: 121 38.7%
  • Vanderbilt

    Votes: 15 4.8%
  • Virginia

    Votes: 47 15.0%
  • Virginia Tech

    Votes: 62 19.8%
  • Stay at 12 teams and don't expand

    Votes: 27 8.6%
  • Add some other school(s) not listed

    Votes: 25 8.0%

  • Total voters
    313
[SEC Fan]The SEC gets Texas A&M and Missouri. The Big Ten gets Johns Hopkins?!? What in the Sam Hill are they thinking? Anything above a 5th grade edge-u-kation doesn't help a kid run fast.[/SEC Fan]
 
Upvote 0
gbearbuck;2298443; said:
What TV market do you pick up with Johns Hopkins? They are a great school with a great lax program, however you already have the Baltimore market with Maryland. Unless it is lax only, I don't get it (although from a shared research standpoint I could see why other Big Ten schools would have interest... Johns Hopkins is a better school than Northwestern imo)...

Maybe this helps show a few of the East/Southeast schools that if they join the Big 10 their non-revenue sports won't suffer in competition. If only there was a way to fix Big 10 baseball.
 
Upvote 0
Piney;2298481; said:
But what if they only have ONE sport in Division I? The rest is Division III... So like kinda all of their sports that compete at the Big Ten level will be in the conference :wink2:

This.

And you can't argue that it's a slipper slope because the rule that allows JHU to do that has been changed.
 
Upvote 0
Buckeye Maniac;2298627; said:
Because I think that allowing affiliate members is stupid. I think that the Big Ten should be the same schools no matter what sport they're playing, as long as the Big Ten supports that sport.

Yep. I'm old school and firmly oppose the bullshit of having psudeo-conferences within a conference depending on what sport is being played. If the B1G doesn't have enough LAX teams to have a conference champion, then just let the B1G schools with LAX teams continue playing as they are now.
 
Upvote 0
I agree with the affiliate member thing.

If that's the case, invite Miami University and Minnesota-Duluth for hockey.

Besides, after Maryland and Rutgers joins, that would be five men's lacrosse programs. Since the Big Ten probably isn't done expanding, at least one of the next two members of the conference (Virginia) would have a lacrosse program to make it six.
 
Upvote 0
VBSJ;2298632; said:
If that's the case, invite Fredo and Minnesota-Duluth for hockey.

1472652_o.gif
 
Upvote 0
matcar;2298701; said:
Should we kick out the University of Chicago too?

U of C is a full CIC member, but they're not an affiliate member for any sports nor have any role in the athletic conference. As a founding member of the athletic conference, they are also somewhat of a unique situation. I'm all for letting JHU into the CIC, but I think it creates a very bad precedent to have affiliate members on the athletic side.

Next thing you know, we will be under (possibly political from the various state legislatures) pressure to let Bowling Green or some directional Michigans/regional Minnestotas in for hockey. The maggot domers will also undoubtedly start sniffing around trying to play and con us like the low rent, godforesaken grifters that they are.
 
Upvote 0
ORD_Buckeye;2298702; said:
U of C is a full CIC member, but they're not an affiliate member for any sports nor have any role in the athletic conference. As a founding member of the athletic conference, they are also somewhat of a unique situation. I'm all for letting JHU into the CIC, but I think it creates a very bad precedent to have affiliate members on the athletic side.

Next thing you know, we will be under (possibly political from the various state legislatures) pressure to let Bowling Green or some directional Michigans/regional Minnestotas in for hockey. The maggot domers will also undoubtedly start sniffing around trying to play and con us like the low rent, godforesaken grifters that they are.

Amend the bylaws so that B1G membership requires admission into the CIC & conference affiliation for all Div 1 sports that the B1G sponsors.

That would take care of any potential academic non-starters gaining admission (ie Pac membership in wrestling for BSU) & end any future fears of ND special treatment.
 
Upvote 0
ORD_Buckeye;2298702; said:
U of C is a full CIC member, but they're not an affiliate member for any sports nor have any role in the athletic conference. As a founding member of the athletic conference, they are also somewhat of a unique situation. I'm all for letting JHU into the CIC, but I think it creates a very bad precedent to have affiliate members on the athletic side.

Next thing you know, we will be under (possibly political from the various state legislatures) pressure to let Bowling Green or some directional Michigans/regional Minnestotas in for hockey. The maggot domers will also undoubtedly start sniffing around trying to play and con us like the low rent, godforesaken grifters that they are.

If JHU can improve work within the CIC and they can also improve an athletic endeavor while not negatively impacting each existing member's financial stake, then I don't see a problem with it. I don't know how or if that could be structured that way...I'll admit.
 
Upvote 0
Back
Top