Big Ten should innovate with expansion
By now, you have read the litany of reasons why Texas would be foolish not to join the Big Ten.  Sure, it seems a little premature and the Big Ten has, in fact, stated that they are looking for recommendations regarding expansion over the next 12-18 months.  Commissioner Delaney recently discussed the league’s expansion agenda and Barry Alvarez said that the Longhorns are not on the list of initial candidates.  Despite the repudiations from Delaney and Alvarez regarding an imminent expansion, the topic has been a big topic of discussion at dinner tables in the Midwest ever since the Texas rumor was floated out there.
I am not terribly interested in discussing whether or not Texas should join, or how much money the new league would generate from television contracts. Â We all know that Big Ten expansion is a money grab: add a 12th team (or perhaps more), stage a conference championship game, and count the new piles of cash that flow in. Â Alvarez is not shy about admitting that fact.
I do not object to Big Ten expansion but I think it can be about more than money. Â If the Big Ten wants to be as or more relevant than every other conference they should innovate in the way that they integrate any additional team(s).
First, we need to recognize some truths about the Conference. Â To this point in Big Ten history the entire league is about these two teams and the season-ending matchup. Â For the vast majority of the League’s history, not much else has mattered in the conference. Â Seriously. Â Sorry Iowa, Wisconsin, and even Penn State.
This truth presents some immediate quandaries. Â You cannot split Ohio State and Michigan up into different divisions because you risk having them play two weeks in a row (the final regular season week and then imagined Big Ten Championship Game). Â You cannot place them in the same division, either. Â That would only ensure that The Game is at best for the opportunity to play for the conference title. Â The idea that Ohio State and Michigan will never play again with the conference title on the line makes me ill.
If the Big Ten wants to expand and dominate the college football landscape and, thus, the television markets, there is a solution that would create a more compelling 12 team league. Â The Big Ten could preserve The Game, get continued exposure through the first week of December, all while owning three different weekends during the season. Â How? Â Maintain one division, play a 10-game round-robin schedule with the elite teams playing the weekends each season.
Here is how it would work.
For the sake of blogging (and awesomeness), let’s assume Texas is the League’s twelfth team. Â The Conference should ensure that Ohio State, Michigan, Penn State, and Texas all play during every season. Â No scheduling quirks. Â No years off. Â The Buckeyes, Wolverines, and Nittany Lions already play every season, so this would only mean adding Texas as a regularly scheduled opponent for each. Â And, to ensure the Big Ten gets maximum exposure out of these matchups, they need to play the same weekends every year - let’s say the last weekend of September, October, and November. Â This is what it would look like in 2010:
| Date | Matchups |
|---|---|
| September 25 | Ohio State v. Penn State Michigan v. Texas |
| October 30 | Michigan v. Penn State Texas v. Ohio State |
| November 27 | Ohio State v. Michigan Penn State v. Texas |
This is a win, win, win. Â On the field, the Conference would create a de facto tournament. The first of its kind. Â I realize that ties are theoretically possible, a 10-game regular decreases this risk because only one conference opponent is skipped.
From a television perspective, the Conference’s bargaining position with the WWL and ABC surely increases, while the Big Ten Network will most likely get to show a game involving one of the big 4 each weekend, which will continue to draw more viewers to the network. Â It is hard to imagine any conference could compete with those weekends on a yearly basis. Â As a result, on average, the Big Ten will own the major national viewing audience for at least three football weekends.
From a tradition standpoint, the League preserves the greatest rivalry in sports and give birth to some new ones without having to manufacture some ridiculous championship game affiliated with a soda company.
For me, and I think many Big Ten football fans, this solution would be great. Â What do you think? Â What potential pitfalls have I overlooked?
Great idea… One challenge is that Texas already has two "automatic" games with A&M and OU. With this proposed configuration, a 12 game season limits their ability to schedule the cash cow games against North Texas and Appalachian State that these programs have grown to need. It would also limit UT's ability to schedule other top BCS competition, which might limit their ability to play in the MNCG.
Also, would this raise the possibility that a team (say, Wisconsin) might not play one or two of these teams and end up winning the conference? With that possibility your tournament might result in only one of these teams getting a BCS bowl bid- currently, there is the possibility of three of them getting in (last year, PSU, tOSU, and Texas all made BCS cash).
Great ideal
The big problem with this is $$. Adding a team to the conference only really benefits the whole conference monetarily if it increases everyone's revenue, and the only way that happens is with the estimated $15 million the Big Ten gets for staging a conference championship game. If that doesn't happen, bringing in Texas isn't going to add enough money to the pool to offset the addition of another team sharing the money.
@MikeLew: I am not sure that three "mega weekends" would not allow the Big Ten to negotiate better all around TV deals as well as bowl tie-ins, which ultimately would make up for the lack of a title game. I totally agree it is all about money, but I think the league can innovate and make more money at the same time.
I agree that they'll gain more in TV revenue with the 3 "mega weekends", I'm just not sure that counterbalances the losses from losing the CCG, what with the sponsors, tickets, concessions, parking, etc. The estimates of that value are in the $12-15 million-a-year range, and I just don't think that the increased television contracts will make up that difference, especially since ABC/ESPN would already get at least 4, and more often 5/6, of those 6 games every year.
I also agree in that I don't want OSU-UM to be reduced in importance, and I'm all for new ideas.
All in all, I'd love to see your idea implemented, I just don't think it'll happen. I didn't mean for my earlier comment to come across as overly negative- I've been told that sometimes that happens with my writing style. Unfortunately, I haven't come up with a way to add a team, keep The Game once a year, every year, and allow for it to still have the potential to decide the conference championship. It's certainly a tough problem.
Texas is NOT feasible for the Big Ten! Forget about it! The Big Ten has a better chance of landing Notre Dame, which isn't very likely as long as they have their private contract with NBC.
We should be going after teams with tradition(Nebraska), that are actually Midwestern teams. The Big Ten needs to STAY A MIDWESTERN CONFERENCE! If the Big Ten lands Nebraska, Missouri and possibly Kansas, Iowa State, Kansas State follow suit.
I am less concerned about HOW they work out the schedule, then WHO is admitted to the Big Ten. If the BT goes after east coast teams like Pitt, Rutgers(God forbid!), or UConn(Holy mackerel!), it will destroy the BT, and I'll start following the SEC more closely. Heck, why not add Temple for the Philadelphia viewing audience, too? Not! Texas is a southern team and would fit geographically with the SEC. I think the BT could land the entire Big 12 Northern Division if Nebraska bolts.
As far as the Ohio State/Michigan game and your comment that " The idea that Ohio State and Michigan will never play again with the conference title on the line makes me ill": Michigan isn't competing for the Big Ten title now, and doesn't look like they will anytime soon(at least under Rich Rod). I'm not that worried about it. If a winless Ohio State team(unlikely) plays a winless UM team, it will still be significant. Maybe it's time to move past the "Big 2 and little 8(9)."