Big Ten to eye expansion

[Kingdome]

Looks like it could be Pitt:

Ben Maller's Sports Rumors & Notes : blog : Source: Pitt headed to Big 10

University of Pittsburgh athletics are moving to the Big 10 conference, according to sources close to the school.

Some athletes were informed of the move over the weekend, a little birdie tells me. This move sets up the natural rivalry with Penn State who joined the conference in 1990. It also gives the Big 10 another east coast presence.

Pitt will become the 12th school in the Big 10, with an official announcement expected by Thursday.

 

[Kingdome]

Chicago Tribune says not so fast:

Pitt to join Big Ten? Not so fast - chicagotribune.com

 

[DearbornDolfan]

Why cant I kick out Baylor? The only reason Baylor and Texas Tech got in the Big 12 was because of legislative lobbists. TCU and SMU would have been overall better fits.

I'd be down for kicking out Baylor and Iowa State, adding TCU and SMU to the South, and moving Oklahoma and Oklahoma State to the North. Then it'd be the best Texas team against the best team north of Texas in the conference championship. Plus, it'd make the Big 12 that much more competitive, because then it wouldn't be a lock for the South to win the conference every year.

 

[WesDawg]

I'm torn on this one. For basketball it almost guarantees that Pitt and Michigan St. will be duking it out annually for the Big Ten title, and the conference will finally have a season-ending tournament (hopefully). For football, it would help recruiting immensely but the caliber of competition would be taking an upturn. I grew up hating Penn St. due to the annual rivalry game between the schools when both were indys, so that would be refreshing again but I'd terribly miss the WVU game every year. I would rather see Notre Dame hit the Big 10 and PSU come to the Big East.
And while we're at it, bring back BC and give USF to the ACC. That would set up wonderful regional rivalries such as BC-UConn and USF-FSU, plus cut back on alot of unnecessary travel time.

 

[WesDawg]

I'd be down for kicking out Baylor and Iowa State, adding TCU and SMU to the South, and moving Oklahoma and Oklahoma State to the North. Then it'd be the best Texas team against the best team north of Texas in the conference championship. Plus, it'd make the Big 12 that much more competitive, because then it wouldn't be a lock for the South to win the conference every year.

Iowa St. to the Big 10, TCU, SMU and Houston to the Big 12 South and move the OK schools north. Maybe throw in Tulsa to even out the numbers and throw Colorado to the MWC.. I like it.
I haven't read all the posts, but isn't it time to merge the MWC and the WAC and make them an automatic BCS berth conference? Utah, BYU, Boise St., Fresno St., Air Force, Colorado(?), Wyoming.. That's a top-7 that would rival almost anyone.

 

[storminn0rm]

Pitt will become the 12th school in the Big 10, with an official announcement expected by Thursday. [/I]

I would like to see that.

 

[Sgt John]

I think Pitt would be a wonderful addition to the Big 10 + 2

 

[DearbornDolfan]

Iowa St. to the Big 10, TCU, SMU and Houston to the Big 12 South and move the OK schools north. Maybe throw in Tulsa to even out the numbers and throw Colorado to the MWC.. I like it.

Yeah, that'd be awesome. The Big 12 is already home to some high-flying offenses, but adding Tulsa would be icing on the cake.

I haven't read all the posts, but isn't it time to merge the MWC and the WAC and make them an automatic BCS berth conference? Utah, BYU, Boise St., Fresno St., Air Force, Colorado(?), Wyoming.. That's a top-7 that would rival almost anyone.

I can get down with this, as well. On the plus side it would increase Hawaii's exposure and with Hawaii starting to recruit seriously in the Pacific (including Japan), it'd be a gateway to a long-running football tradition that's yet to be tapped.

 

[Sgt John]

Tulsa would never be able to compete in the Big 12. Also bear in mind Tulsa is a private school only boasting an enrollment of 4200. Baylor's enrollment is 3 times that size. Both run similar offenses, so basically wed be booting Baylor for a worse version thereof.

SMU only rolls about 6,000 students, but the endowment is larger than Tulsa's and Baylors. SMU is also located in a much larger area than Tulsa or Waco.

Given a choice between the three private schools, Id rather have SMU in the Big 12.

 

[Sgt John]

Id like to see this in the Big 12:

North
Nebraska
Kansas
Kansas State
Oklahoma
Oklahoma State
Colorado/Missouri

South
Texas
Texas Farm School
TCU
SMU
Houston
Texas Tech

Possibly move TCU north and keep OU south so there is SOME balance of power. TCU is ready. SMU would recruit and draw a hell of a lot better facing off with Big 12 schools. I think Houston, with its fertile recruiting grounds literally in the backyard, would quickly pass Texas A&M up.

 

[Sgt John]

Id would like to hear from the group about the listed north division above. Does anyone else feel like Oklahoma up there with those schools would almost punch its ticket every damn year to the title game?

 

[Miller]

the road for Texas in the south wouldn't be any more difficult in most years.

 

[Sgt John]

I think it would be with TCU in there. Patterson does SO much already, with the added prestige of being in the Big 12 I think hed start getting killers in school there.

 

[Sgt John]

I would wonder what SMU would get if they had that added prestige as well. You have to admit, Jones knows how to turn programs around.

 

[WesDawg]

It would just mean that the 2 best teams would compete in the title game in most years instead of the Red River Rivalry being, in effect, an elimination game. Would that work out to each team playing all 5 opponents in their division, 4 from the opposite division, and 3 non-conference games plus a possible championship game?
Texas' schedule would instantly get harder with something that looks like OK, OK St., Nebraska, TCU, A&M, Tech, Houston, plus 1 respectable non-Big 12 opponent per year and the title game. That's 9 quality wins most years if they can navigate it. Most other frontrunners in the other power conferences would have a hard time besting that.

 

[WesDawg]

Wouldn't TCU growing like that come somewhat at the expense of SMU? They'd get hurt in that scenario much faster than UT or A&M, I would think.

 

[Sgt John]

It would just mean that the 2 best teams would compete in the title game in most years instead of the Red River Rivalry being, in effect, an elimination game. Would that work out to each team playing all 5 opponents in their division, 4 from the opposite division, and 3 non-conference games plus a possible championship game?
Texas' schedule would instantly get harder with something that looks like OK, OK St., Nebraska, TCU, A&M, Tech, Houston, plus 1 respectable non-Big 12 opponent per year and the title game. That's 9 quality wins most years if they can navigate it. Most other frontrunners in the other power conferences would have a hard time besting that.

The way it works right now you get three teams from the opposite division that rotate on the sched for two years and off for two years.

We just finished two years with Missouri, Colorado, and Kansas. Now in 2010 and 2011 we get Nebraska, Kansas State, and Iowa State.

 

[Miller]

The Herd on ESPN was talking for quite a bit today about this today. It is being reported that both the Big 10 and Texas have expressed mutual interedt in each other. This would be HUGE if this happened......guess this stem over TV money, B10's contract money is great.
Posted via Mobile Device

 

[Sgt John]

See the Pac-10 Thread and answer my questions LOL

 

[Remote Controller]

See the Pac-10 Thread and answer my questions LOL

What is this pac10 you speak about? :headscratch: