Proud fans of a 128-year old tradition

It is currently Thu Dec 18, 2014 8:30 am

All times are UTC - 4 hours [ DST ]




Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 39 posts ]  Go to page 1, 2  Next
Author Message
 Post subject: Re: Pitt to Big 10
PostPosted: Tue Feb 02, 2010 1:59 am 
Offline
User avatar
 Profile

Joined: Sat Jan 23, 2010 2:50 pm
Posts: 700
I don't think there is any way Texas will join the Big 10. I don't even think the Big 10 would ask Texas to join them. They're incredibly far away for one. Secondly, they are entrenched and in control of the Big 12 conference. They've got tradition with current Big 12 teams that they would be stupid to throw out - OU, Texas Tech, A&M.

Not only that, but if I am not mistaken, the Big 12 doesn't share revenue evenly as the Big 10 does which means Texas gets a bigger piece of the pie there than the other teams. What's not to like about that? The Big 12 will also get another chance to re-negotiate a TV contract and perhaps they will decide to go the route of the Big 10 and start their own network at that time. If they do, it means money. They probably play a better brand of football than the Big 10 anyways.

Missouri wouldn't be a poor choice for the Big 10. It would add a new TV market. The same can be said about Rutgers and Syracuse. In the end, though, I don't think that Rutgers or Syracuse would really be that big of a draw. I hear a lot about TV markets but what you have to realize is that just because a team is located near a certain market (NYC in this case) doesn't mean you are going to be able to bully that market into putting your channel on the sets as a subscription. People would have to care about Rutgers or Syracuse football before that could happen. I don't think that would work out so well for the Big 10. On the other hand, Missouri adds a market that would be likely to want the network.

All in all, I think Pitt is a good choice for the Big 10. If they aren't all consumed about extending the footprint to get another market for the Big 10 Network Pitt is an excellent choice. They only thing it doesn't bring is the TV market. I'm not sure how much I buy the TV market is the only reason they are expanding philosophy. I think part of it is that they want a championship game and another team would allow that to happen. I don't think the Big 10 is going to bring in a team who doesn't fit right with their conference just to get the new TV market either.


Top
 
 Post subject: Re: Pitt to Big 10
PostPosted: Tue Feb 02, 2010 11:16 am 
Offline
User avatar
 WWW  Profile

Joined: Sat Apr 26, 2008 8:43 pm
Posts: 5011
Location: Omaha, NE via Sioux City, Kansas City, and Chicago
There is less than .00000000001% chance that Texas would go to the Big 10. There is a better chance of Texas going the route of Notre Dame and becoming Independent than joining the Big 10.

NDL is absolutely correct about the Big XII and their TV contract. It is the worst TV contract for any major conference but it runs out in two years. Because of the huge success of both football and basketball the conference will negotiate some mega-deal that will stuff more $$$ into the pockets of the Texas and Oklahoma's of the world.

_________________
Iowa State Cyclones (2-9) at #3 Texas Christian Horned Frogs (10-1)
Saturday, December 6, 2014 11:00 AM
Amon G. Carter Stadium, Forth Worth, TX
ABC


Top
 
 Post subject: Re: Pitt to Big 10
PostPosted: Tue Feb 02, 2010 11:20 am 
Offline
User avatar
 Profile

Joined: Sat Apr 26, 2008 4:52 pm
Posts: 5558
Location: Pittsburgh
No. 9 wrote:
Rumor apparently quashed . . . at least as to the timetable.

http://www.chicagobreakingsports.com/20 ... g-ten.html

In my mind, it will come down to Pitt or Missouri. There has been some momentum behind making a play for Texas (if you look at the $$$$, it would be huge for Texas), but I just don't see Texas wanting to bail on its tradition - dollars be damned. ND is always mentioned but ND is not interested. However, the $$$$ for them is now far different than when they told the Big 10 to stick it some time ago. Their alumni have zero interest in giving up their Independent status. They can schedule 7 home football games, 4 away games and one game at a neutral site. If they affiliate with any conference, they lose a massive amount of freedom.

Outside of my personal preference, I'm betting on Missouri due to (1) geography and (2) tapping into the St. Louis televison market. With all due respect to Pitt, PSU is the "big draw" in Pennsylvania. Adding Pitt to the Big 10 will only marginally add to the television numbers. Tapping into St. Louis will add to the number of televisions.

I'm betting on Missouri due to Joe Paterno. He'd rather walk across hot coals barefoot than play Pitt.

And that's fine by me. I prefer the Big East for Pitt. It's not the worst football conference, and it's a great basketball conference.

Notre Dame better start rethinking their independent status. They're losing a little more of their reputation every year. The day is coming when they won't be able to attract an independent national TV contract unless they put together a string of top 10 teams pretty soon.

_________________
"Enjoy every sandwich." - Warren Zevon


Top
 
 Post subject: Re: Pitt to Big 10
PostPosted: Tue Feb 02, 2010 12:17 pm 
Offline
User avatar
 WWW  Profile

Joined: Sat Apr 26, 2008 8:43 pm
Posts: 5011
Location: Omaha, NE via Sioux City, Kansas City, and Chicago
I can't stand Notre Dame but they are just fine where they are. They have a lucrative TV deal with NBC and no matter how poor they play they will get that contract renewed. Whatever bowl they play in they keep the payout and don't split withing the conference. When they play in a BCS game they keep roughly $10 million. Not bad.

_________________
Iowa State Cyclones (2-9) at #3 Texas Christian Horned Frogs (10-1)
Saturday, December 6, 2014 11:00 AM
Amon G. Carter Stadium, Forth Worth, TX
ABC


Top
 
 Post subject: Re: Pitt to Big 10
PostPosted: Tue Feb 02, 2010 12:26 pm 
Offline
User avatar
 Profile

Joined: Sun Apr 27, 2008 2:11 pm
Posts: 5902
Location: 120 miles west of Iowa City
IA -
The numbers have changed dramatically for ND and the BCS. The days of $10M payouts are over. They are capped at $4M per the latest agreement (which brought non-BCS conferences into play based upon final rankings). If ND gets a BCS bid, their FB revenue is competitive but still less than most Big 10 and SEC schools. Without a BCS, their revenues are way down - even with the NBC deal.

_________________
Reflexively, obsessively and tastelessly submitted,
No. 9
Obsessive proponent of situational bunting and 2 strike hitting approaches, reflexively pro-catchers calling good games and tasteless proponent of the value of a RBI.


Top
 
 Post subject: Re: Pitt to Big 10
PostPosted: Tue Feb 02, 2010 4:17 pm 
Offline
User avatar
 Profile

Joined: Sat Jan 23, 2010 2:50 pm
Posts: 700
The reason I would like to see Pitt switch conferences is despite the fact that the on-field football product in the Big East may not be worse than the ACC or Big Ten, the Big East will never be recognized as such by the media or coaches who in rankings and therefore bowl projections have a voice. It doesn't matter that their opinions at times are irrational and based on myths.

Secondly, being a Pitt student and future graduate I would appreciate a move to the Big Ten because of the increase in academic prestige said move would bring to the university.

Finally I do admit I am very biased on this subject despite my attempts at staying open to debate, fair-minded, and level-headed.


Top
 
 Post subject: Re: Pitt to Big 10
PostPosted: Tue Feb 02, 2010 9:31 pm 
Offline
User avatar
 Profile

Joined: Sat Apr 26, 2008 4:52 pm
Posts: 5558
Location: Pittsburgh
NDL wrote:
The reason I would like to see Pitt switch conferences is despite the fact that the on-field football product in the Big East may not be worse than the ACC or Big Ten, the Big East will never be recognized as such by the media or coaches who in rankings and therefore bowl projections have a voice. It doesn't matter that their opinions at times are irrational and based on myths.

Secondly, being a Pitt student and future graduate I would appreciate a move to the Big Ten because of the increase in academic prestige said move would bring to the university.

Finally I do admit I am very biased on this subject despite my attempts at staying open to debate, fair-minded, and level-headed.

That's just fine if you don't care what happens to Pitt basketball, which dries up and blows away if they leave the Big East.

Sorry, but Pitt is more likely to drag down the academic reputations of Big 10 schools than it is to benefit from them.

_________________
"Enjoy every sandwich." - Warren Zevon


Top
 
 Post subject: Re: Pitt to Big 10
PostPosted: Tue Feb 02, 2010 9:38 pm 
Offline
User avatar
 WWW  YIM  Profile

Joined: Sat Apr 26, 2008 7:24 pm
Posts: 4291
Location: Zelienople, PA
sisyphus wrote:
That's just fine if you don't care what happens to Pitt basketball, which dries up and blows away if they leave the Big East...


Why? Because, you know, the Big 10 has really hurt Michigan St.

Pitt doesn't recruit Pitt anyways, they have always been a recruiter from many states and locations, and recruited for specific player types. That wouldn't change. If you are suggesting the 5 star NYC recruit will now turn down Pitt for Syracuse, well.... wait, they do that now.

ZM

_________________
Someone tell Votto... rbis are good


Top
 
 Post subject: Re: Pitt to Big 10
PostPosted: Tue Feb 02, 2010 10:32 pm 
Offline
 Profile

Joined: Sat Apr 26, 2008 7:30 pm
Posts: 6301
Pitt would be a Big 10 power in basketball. Unfortunately, I think Jamie Dixon would be gone as soon as he could find another job which wouldn't be long.


Top
 
 Post subject: Re: Pitt to Big 10
PostPosted: Tue Feb 02, 2010 11:51 pm 
Offline
User avatar
 Profile

Joined: Sat Jan 23, 2010 2:50 pm
Posts: 700
sisyphus wrote:
NDL wrote:
The reason I would like to see Pitt switch conferences is despite the fact that the on-field football product in the Big East may not be worse than the ACC or Big Ten, the Big East will never be recognized as such by the media or coaches who in rankings and therefore bowl projections have a voice. It doesn't matter that their opinions at times are irrational and based on myths.

Secondly, being a Pitt student and future graduate I would appreciate a move to the Big Ten because of the increase in academic prestige said move would bring to the university.

Finally I do admit I am very biased on this subject despite my attempts at staying open to debate, fair-minded, and level-headed.

That's just fine if you don't care what happens to Pitt basketball, which dries up and blows away if they leave the Big East.

Sorry, but Pitt is more likely to drag down the academic reputations of Big 10 schools than it is to benefit from them.


First off, you're absolutely right that I don't care about Pitt basketball in this context. They're my team and I will support them no-matter what, however, when you weigh the basketball program in this context I could care less. The fact of the matter are two things: 1. I am concerned more than anything about academics since that affects my life personally and any benefit I may derive from decisions the university makes are the most important to me and 2. Football pays the bills in college athletics, not basketball with the exception of a few choice programs of which we are not a part.

Secondly, I think it is a complete myth that Pitt basketball is just going to die if Pitt were to move to the Big 10. For the same reasons that Big East football isn't as bad as it is made out to be in the media Big 10 basketball isn't as bad as it is made out to be by Big East fans on message boards. In addition, I think Big East basketball while traditionally a strong conference is overrated just a bit by the same folks aforementioned. As someone pointed out Michigan State has done just fine in the Big 10 in basketball as has Ohio State, Michigan, Purdue, and Indiana. There are bottom feeders in every league in every sport as well: the Big 10 has Penn State and we have Depaul in the Big East currently. It's just a fact of life.

In addition to this argument, keep in mind that by joining the Big 10 Pitt would have more money at their disposal by FAR to spend on athletics. The Big 10 currently has the most lucrative TV contract out of all the conferences. Each Big 10 team gets more individually than ND does from NBC for their TV deal. This cash could be used to help the athletic program in all sports, including basketball, which could benefit from facilities upgrades when they are due and whatever else the department needs.

What does it matter to a recruit that they are going to be playing in the Big 10 vs. the Big East? Pitt is still the same school in the same location with the same campus and presumably the same coaching staff. I'm open to hear debate on why basketball recruiting would be killed by a shift in conferences but as of right now I have not been convinced. The only real argument I heard was we are better able to recruit NY and NJ because the conference championship tournament is played at MSG. If recruits are basing where they are going to be spending their college days based solely on a conference tournament in NYC then I think there are bigger issues than worrying about switching conferences.

Finally, I am very surprised to see that you believe Pitt would drag down the academic reputation of the Big 10. I'm curious to see why you would say such a thing, but first I will post some facts for your consideration:

1. Pitt is a member of the AAU for being an outstanding research institution.

2. As a whole, Pitt is ranked by US News and World Report at #56 in terms of national universities (all of which the Big 10 schools are). This ranking is almost exactly average for a Big 10 school: Pitt ranks ahead of Purdue (61), Minnesota (61), Indiana (71), Michigan State (71) and Iowa (71) and is just 3 spots away from Ohio State at #53.

http://colleges.usnews.rankingsandreviews.com/best-colleges/national-universities-rankings/page+3

3. Pitt has excellent graduate and professional schools headlined of course by the medical school (#13 in the country according to US News). In other words, Pitt is NOT just a fine undergraduate institution but is also a university who is taking a leading role in important research including hot topics such as AIDS and limb regeneration.

How is it that Pitt would lower the academic reputation of the Big 10?


Top
 
 Post subject: Re: Pitt to Big 10
PostPosted: Wed Feb 03, 2010 10:01 pm 
Offline
 Profile

Joined: Sat Apr 26, 2008 6:11 pm
Posts: 3364
Location: Wheeling, WV
The lousy Mounties from the lowly Big East, are beating Pitt right now by 6 at half. If Pitt can't win in the Big East, they might as well go to the Big 10 and maybe win there.

Money? Pitt brings nothing to the football table. Hell, they sell season tickets for $80.00 and can't sell them except for the fact that ND was coming this year.

As far as poor football programs in the Big East, look at the bottom half of the Big Ten and you'll find some really average teams.

Go WVU

_________________
2011 Will Be Our Year -- well make that 2012 (just saying) So it looks like 2013 now - how long must this go on!
THIS IS IT-- NO MORE STREAK!!! *** Finally*** Time to win it in 2014


Top
 
 Post subject: Re: Pitt to Big 10
PostPosted: Thu Feb 04, 2010 3:03 am 
Offline
User avatar
 Profile

Joined: Sat Jan 23, 2010 2:50 pm
Posts: 700
First off, you're talking apples and oranges. Pitt lost to WVU in basketball today. By all accounts, WVU is not lowly in basketball and neither is the Big East.

Secondly, while you are right that Pitt may not offer much financially to the Big 10 I think that has a lot to do with a separate issue than attendance at football games. Also, attendance at football games may be indicative of an even more important problem than attendance is in and of itself.

The big problem with what Pitt brings to the Big 10, by all accounts, is the fact that it doesn't bring a new TV market to the conference. Adding a school with a new TV market would add to the revenue for the Big 10. Adding a team that doesn't add a new TV market would decrease the revenue per Big 10 team which is something they obviously don't want to do.

Now, attendance at the football games and season ticket packages are probably indicative of a more substantial problem than poor attendance in and of itself. What it really says is that Pitt has a poor fan base. If that's the case, who is going to demand watching Pitt football games on the Big 10 network when the cable company decides they are going to pull it from the Pittsburgh area because it's too expensive? Even worse, who in western PA is going to protest outside of Pittsburgh (maybe Oakland, sad to say) itself? Nobody. And that's the problem...not the fact that Pitt can't sell the stadium out unless ND comes. There's a bigger underlying problem than empty seats...there's a lack of a good fan base.

Unfortunately, the lack of fan base for Pitt extends far and wide in my estimation. While I think the Pirates will be able to catch on if they put together a winning product Pitt football will never enjoy the same pleasure. They play football which is rivaled by the biggest show in town: the Steelers. Pitt football will always suffer due to this because there will always be football games on Saturday and Sunday which fans will have to choose between. When that happens, I think you can see what the result is from attendance. Pitt clearly can do better by winning more football games and staying competitive, however, there is a fundamental problem that I have already hypothesized which runs deeper than empty seats.


Top
 
 Post subject: Re: Pitt to Big 10
PostPosted: Thu Feb 04, 2010 1:52 pm 
Offline
 Profile

Joined: Sat Apr 26, 2008 6:11 pm
Posts: 3364
Location: Wheeling, WV
I guess my issue is that I don't see the Big 10 as so much of a great conference. If we look at this conferences bowl record over the past decade, we see a miserable performance. A losing record for sure. Look only at the Rose Bowl results over years. I don't have the numbers but it's very clear.

What that means to me is that the conference has been so overrated for years that their teams get ranked higher and invited to more bowl games then their play deserves. So, sooner or later that fact will be learned by people and their control of money and TV will end. Why would Pitt want to be in that situation?

No, they should stay where they are.

_________________
2011 Will Be Our Year -- well make that 2012 (just saying) So it looks like 2013 now - how long must this go on!
THIS IS IT-- NO MORE STREAK!!! *** Finally*** Time to win it in 2014


Top
 
 Post subject: Re: Pitt to Big 10
PostPosted: Thu Feb 04, 2010 8:33 pm 
Offline
User avatar
 Profile

Joined: Sat Jan 23, 2010 2:50 pm
Posts: 700
That all makes sense if you think that the perception people have about the conference is going to dramatically change for the worse. I happen to doubt that will happen for a variety of reasons.

For one, the conference is made up of huge schools. That means they pump out a huge number of graduates. With that said, because of the power of numbers a lot of minds are going to have to change in regard to how good the conference is. Also, keep in mind that it's the schools at the top of the conference who can pull in the top recruits year in and year out that really matter because that's all the media cares about. I don't see perceptions about Michigan and Ohio State changing anytime soon and that's what drives the conference in terms of how strong the media believes they are.

Also, why turn down the money? The Big 10 would make Pitt athletics way more money than the Big East does. Do you think that is going to change? I highly, highly doubt it.


Top
 
 Post subject: Re: Pitt to Big 10
PostPosted: Mon Feb 08, 2010 2:31 pm 
Offline
User avatar
 Profile

Joined: Sun Apr 27, 2008 2:11 pm
Posts: 5902
Location: 120 miles west of Iowa City
Substitute2 wrote:
I guess my issue is that I don't see the Big 10 as so much of a great conference. If we look at this conferences bowl record over the past decade, we see a miserable performance. A losing record for sure. Look only at the Rose Bowl results over years. I don't have the numbers but it's very clear.

What that means to me is that the conference has been so overrated for years that their teams get ranked higher and invited to more bowl games then their play deserves. So, sooner or later that fact will be learned by people and their control of money and TV will end. Why would Pitt want to be in that situation?

No, they should stay where they are.


Sub -
"So" overrated? Who is overrating them? Big 10 football has been a punching bag in the media for many, many years. I'm curious as to what Big 10 teams received bowl bids to what bowls that were undeserved. And who should have received the bowl bid in their place?

The TV contract is based upon number of TV sets. Big 10 country is, by far, the leader. The TV money isn't going away. Attendance is huge. Fan interest is huge. That isn't going away.

Invites to the bowl games are largely contractual. In fact, one might call New Year's Day 2011 as "Big 10/SEC day." Big 10 teams will be playing in the Outback Bowl (#3 Big 10 versus SEC), Gator Bowl (#4 Big 10 v. SEC), Capital One Bowl (#2 Big 10 v. SEC) and Rose Bowl (#1 Big 10 v. Pac10). There will be at least four Big 10 teams playing on New Year's Day. There is also the chance for a 5th Big 10 team to be playing on New Years Day depending upon how the teams fare. It is in the new Dallas Football Classic and potentially matches a Big 10 team against a Conference USA team. And, on top of that, the Big 10 (like any other conference) has the chance to have a second BCS team (Iowa received an at-large bid and beat GT in the Orange Bowl this year).

This year, the Big East had Cincinnati as its BCS representative. WVU got to play on 1/1/10 against FSU. Then Pitt fell to the Car Care bowl on 12/26. Pitt as the "third seed" in the Big East played on 12/26 in the Car Care Bowl against North Carolina.

The Big 10's third seed (PSU) played on 1/1/10 against LSU. The Big 10's fourth seed (Northwestern) played on 1/1/10 against Auburn. The Big 10's fifth seed (Wisconsin) played on 12/29/09 against Miami. Hell, the Big 10's sixth seed (MSU) played on 1/2/10 against Texas Tech and the Big 10 seventh seed (Minnesota) played on 12/31/09 against Iowa State.

Thus, seven Big 10 teams played bowl games after Pitt played UNC on 12/26.

The national TV money isn't going away based upon popularity and, just as important, the bowl money isn't going away because of contractual tie-ins.

_________________
Reflexively, obsessively and tastelessly submitted,
No. 9
Obsessive proponent of situational bunting and 2 strike hitting approaches, reflexively pro-catchers calling good games and tasteless proponent of the value of a RBI.


Top
 
 Post subject: Re: Pitt to Big 10
PostPosted: Mon Feb 08, 2010 7:13 pm 
Offline
 Profile

Joined: Sat Apr 26, 2008 6:11 pm
Posts: 3364
Location: Wheeling, WV
My question isn't about getting bowl bids. In fact that's my point. The Big 10 is so overrated that they get into so many undeserved games. The evidence of that fact is that they do so poorly in those games. This year was an exception but most years they get trounced. Maybe someone else should be there instead.

Not defending WVU here. Yes I'm a huge fan but as a realist I know that their team was not very strong this year. But that doesn't mean that the Big 10 is strong.

Answer these three questions:
1. What was their out of conference record against BCS schools?
2. What is their over-all record in bowl games in say the last 10 years?
3. What is the over-all record for the bottom half of the conference teams in that same period?

The SEC can rightfully claim that they deserve that many bowl games, the Big Ten cannot. BTW, how's the Rich Rod thing working out for Michigan?

_________________
2011 Will Be Our Year -- well make that 2012 (just saying) So it looks like 2013 now - how long must this go on!
THIS IS IT-- NO MORE STREAK!!! *** Finally*** Time to win it in 2014


Top
 
 Post subject: Re: Pitt to Big 10
PostPosted: Tue Feb 09, 2010 2:21 pm 
Offline
User avatar
 Profile

Joined: Sun Apr 27, 2008 2:11 pm
Posts: 5902
Location: 120 miles west of Iowa City
Sub -
You keep making reference to Big 10 teams getting into "undeserved" games. Since teams are responsible for their own schedules, I gather that your "beef" is with the bowl selection process.

My understanding of your original point was that Big 10 football was likely going to see a decrease in revenue and that Pitt should avoid any temptation to jump leagues. My point was (1) the Big 10 has contractual tie-ins with 8 bowls right now; (2) fans of Big 10 football travel as well as - if not better than - any football conference in America. The contractual tie-ins aren't going away. Also, the number of TV sets in Big 10 country outnumber the TV sets in any other part of the country. Plus, the number of alumni across the country from Big 10 schools outnumbers any other conference. Thus, the TV money isn't going away. The combination of (1) fan enthusiasm; (2) number of fans and (3) contracts with bowls will ensure that the ADs in Big 10 schools see loads of revenue coming from football. I simply don't agree with the notion that the Big 10 schools are on the verge of facing any reduction in revenue let alone a significant reduction in revenue.

Back to the "deserved" argument . . . because of contractual tie-ins, the only discretionary bowl that a Big 10 team can be invited to would be an at-large BCS bowl. There have been 12 seasons since the inception of the BCS. Of those 12 seasons, 9 of them have seen a Big 10 team receive an at-large bid. Here are the results of the at-large teams by year:

'98-'99 - # 4 Ohio State defeats #6 Texas Tech in Sugar Bowl (24-14)
'99- '00 - #8 Michigan defeats #4 Alabama in Orange Bowl (35-34 in OT)
'00-'01 - no at large bid
'01-'02 - no at large bid
'02-'03 - #4 USC beats #5 Iowa in Orange Bowl (38-17)
'03-'04 - #5 Ohio State defeats #10 Kansas State in Fiesta Bowl (35-28)
'04-'05 - no at large bid
'05-'06 - #4 Ohio State defeats #6 Notre Dame in Fiesta Bowl (34-30) * automatic bid due to #4 ranking
'06-'07 - #5 USC defeats #3 Michigan in Rose Bowl (32-18) * automatic bid due to #3 ranking
'07-'08 - #7 USC defeats #13 Illinois in Rose Bowl (49-17)
'08-'09 - #3 Texas defeats #10 Ohio State in Fiesta Bowl (24-21)
'09-'10 - #10 Iowa defeats #9 Georgia Tech in Orange Bowl (27-14)

Total record in discretionary games with BCS is 5-4. And, really, because of the BCS rules, the bowls had to select OSU in '05-'06 and Michigan in '06-'07. So . . . really, the Big 10 is 4-3 in BCS games where a team received an at-large invitation. In their 3 losses, Iowa got thumped by USC in the second half of the '02-'03 Orange Bowl (Iowa led at halftime); Illinois got thumped throughout the game by USC in the '07-'08 Rose Bowl; OSU lost a squeaker to Texas in the '08-'09 Fiesta Bowl.

I can't speak to the entire conference's bowl record but do know that Iowa is 5-3 over the last 10 years in their bowl games. (1-1 agaisnt Big 12; 0-1 against Pac 10; 1-0 against ACC and 3-2 against the vaunted SEC; wins over Florida, LSU, Texas Tech, South Carolina and Georgia Tech and losses to Florida, USC and Texas)

_________________
Reflexively, obsessively and tastelessly submitted,
No. 9
Obsessive proponent of situational bunting and 2 strike hitting approaches, reflexively pro-catchers calling good games and tasteless proponent of the value of a RBI.


Top
 
 Post subject: Re: Pitt to Big 10
PostPosted: Tue Feb 09, 2010 2:43 pm 
Offline
User avatar
 Profile

Joined: Sun Apr 27, 2008 2:11 pm
Posts: 5902
Location: 120 miles west of Iowa City
I'll also add one more point to the discussion. As much as discussion focuses on the athletic side of the equation, there is very much an academic side to the equation.

All Big 10 schools are members of the Association of American Universities ("AAU"). Also, the Big 10 schools plus the University of Chicago comprise the Committee of Institutional Cooperation ("CIC"). The opportunity to become a member of the CIC was a huge lure to Penn State when it joined the Big 10.

In the early 90s, the University of Texas approached the Big 10 and the Pac 8 about joining the conference primarily because it saw a better fit academically with the Big 10 (not all of the Big 8 schools at the time were AAU schools and UT wanted to become part of the CIC). Stanford (an academic rival of Texas voted "no") and the Big 10 had placed a four year moritorium on expansion after adding PSU so it said "no" as well. Texas then became part of the Big 12.

Despite its geographical distance from the remainder of the Big 10 schools, word has it that Texas' administration (outside of athletics) very much froths at the mouth at the possibility of becoming a member of the CIC. They also purportedly view joining a conference with all members being part of the AAU as desirable. Only 7 of the 12 Big 12 schools are AAU members. I know that Oklahoma; Oklahoma State; Baylor are not AAU member institutions. Research $$$, access to research, etc. is a huge lure for the academic side of the equation and drive the process as much as athletics.

So . . . the notion that Texas joining the Big 10 is perhaps not the pipe dream that some think it is. I still think that big pocket Texas alumni will balk and put pressure on the administration to say "no" if an invite is extended. Missouri and Pitt seem to me to be the logical and most likely "fits" from both an athletic, geographic and an academic standpoint. Both Mizzou and Pitt are AAU institutions and would make excellent additions to the CIC (Pitt more than Mizzou based solely on the medical side of the equation). I know for a fact that the U of Iowa (largest teaching hospital in the country) would welcome the opportunity to bring Pitt into the CIC fold.

_________________
Reflexively, obsessively and tastelessly submitted,
No. 9
Obsessive proponent of situational bunting and 2 strike hitting approaches, reflexively pro-catchers calling good games and tasteless proponent of the value of a RBI.


Top
 
 Post subject: Re: Pitt to Big 10
PostPosted: Tue Feb 09, 2010 4:07 pm 
Offline
User avatar
 Profile

Joined: Sat Jan 23, 2010 2:50 pm
Posts: 700
I agree that academics are more important than many people believe in this equation. The Big 10 isn't going to just add another university because it wants to add one but it also isn't going to just add one because of a superior athletic program. If that were the criteria, they may as well look at WVU who has a solid football and basketball program. Plain and simple, that isn't going to happen.

From what I understand, the AAU membership is not so much a requirement as a desire. ND is not a member of the AAU from what I understand but the Big 10 would obviously overlook that and admit them if they desired to join.

I can't see Texas joining the Big 10. It doesn't make sense from their end, to me, to join the conference. They rule the Big 12 and get the biggest cut of the Big 12 TV contract payout pie. The Big 12 isn't exactly chopped liver, either. They have nice rivalry games in that conference and they couldn't continue all of them if they joined the Big 10.

Geography is actually something that I think also gets overlooked. Texas is really far away. If they join the Big 10, they are going to be competing in the Big 10 in all sports they choose to participate in because the Big 10 is an all sports conference. Can you see them sending their olympic sports teams to State College, Ann Arbor, and Madison on a regular basis? That's really far away and would wreak havoc on their travel funds. It's not a huge deal in football with only 12 games a year and one game a week but it is a big deal in other sports.

The only way I could see Texas joining the Big 10 would be if the Big 10 chooses to add more than one school. If they choose to do so, they could add 3-5 universities and then split into divisions that would make sense from a geographical standpoint. I am starting to think that this may be the future of the conferences. If the Big 10 does seek to add more than one university, I also think Pitt will get an invitation.


Top
 
 Post subject: Re: Pitt to Big 10
PostPosted: Tue Feb 09, 2010 4:41 pm 
Offline
User avatar
 Profile

Joined: Sun Apr 27, 2008 2:11 pm
Posts: 5902
Location: 120 miles west of Iowa City
Sub -
Forgot to answer one of your other questions.

I think that the RichRod "thing" in Michigan is working out just fine. I hope that it plays out exactly the way it has over the last two years. The guy is a grade A toolbox and I hope for nothing but failure for him.

I've been to the yearly coaches' luncheon for many, many years and you get a sense for who the coaches respect and who they don't respect. RichRod is clearly not liked by the other coaches. Zook at Illinois is a close second. Paterno's speech before DickRod's first year seemed playful enough but it contained just enough "jabs" that DickRod looked uncomfortable at times and caused some murmors in the crowd.

Sadly . . . I think that the DickRod experiment will come to a close in Ann Arbor faster than I'd like it to. At that point, they'll return to a higher level of football. Until that time, I will revel in Michigan's mediocrity.

_________________
Reflexively, obsessively and tastelessly submitted,
No. 9
Obsessive proponent of situational bunting and 2 strike hitting approaches, reflexively pro-catchers calling good games and tasteless proponent of the value of a RBI.


Top
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 39 posts ]  Go to page 1, 2  Next

All times are UTC - 4 hours [ DST ]


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot post attachments in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  
Powered by phpBB © 2000, 2002, 2005, 2007 phpBB Group  
Design By Poker Bandits