Thoughts on The Big Ten Meetings

ESPN Blogger Adam Rittenberg has been keeping up with the Big Ten meetings in Chicago.  While nothing earth-shattering has come out of those meetings to date, there have been some very interesting choices of words used.  I've got a few thoughts on what is really being said, particularly in respect to the looming expansion.

Rittenberg writes : College athletics are hardly foreign to expansion, and Delany spent a ton of time detailing what has happened in other leagues. He's basically saying, "We're not the first ones to do this, OK?" The problem is how messy the previous expansions have been (i.e. ACC-Big East in 2003). "A lot of these things that we've studied have been, in my view, improperly studied [by other leagues]," Delany said.

My Thoughts: This is really important, if not utterly frustrating.  In one of those rumors that popped up out of Kansas City, it was said that Delany wanted this thing done for a July 1 announcement.  Not only was the rest of that rumor un-categorically denied, but apparently the time frame was utterly wrong as well. 

I will be the first to say that I wish this expansion hoopla was over yesterday.  I'm growing tired of the speculation, predictions, and circular arguments surrounding the same facts and stats that I saw four months ago. 

Nothing particularly new has emerged from the argument.  People are just rehashing the same things and giving them new headlines.  Notre Dame would be huge, as would Texas.  Rutgers opens up New York and New Jersey, or they don't.  The Big Ten is going to transform college football into a collection of Super Conferences, or they're not.  Missouri is in. Missouri is out. 

None of these arguments are new, and I wish the Big Ten would make their move so we can get on to debating whether it was a good one or not.  Then, we can finally put the issue behind us and start looking forward to the 2010 season.

What Delany said is very important though, and has instilled a new sense of patience in me.  While he may not have explicitly mentioned the ACC expansion of 2003, he alluded to it and it's important to note what happened there.

As Bleacher Report writer Jeff Kalafa discussed in one of his articles , the ACC's expansion back in 2003 hasn't worked out quite like planned.  The money hasn't come rolling in.  No network has been launched to date.  Their championship game isn't as exciting as, say, the SEC's.  Some of the teams (BC) don't necessarily fit, even seven years later. 

That's something Jim Delany and his staff should be looking at very closely.  The Big Ten doesn't want to expand simply for the sake of grabbing a 12th team (or more) and the money may not always be there as freely as it could be today.  They've got to make sure that whoever they bring aboard (if anyone) will be a tangible benefit to the conference as a whole, will be a benefit to the school(s) invited, and will truly feel "at home" in the Big Ten Conference. 

If that takes 12 months, then Delany needs to take those 12 months to figure it out.  There can be no rush into this business.  If someone else jumps the gun and makes a move first, so be it.  For their sake, hopefully they made the right choice.  It's crucial, though, that the Big Ten makes the right choice, regardless of whatever anyone else does. 

Delany is giving due diligence to every scenario and making sure that this thing is done right.  I applaud that, even if my patience is running a little thin.

Rittenberg Writes: ( on even distribution of money) "I'm huge on where we are," Ohio State athletic director Gene Smith said. "Philosophically, we share evenly in order to help everyone in this league have a quality environment for their student-athletes and ultimately rise all the ships. ... I think what we have really helps all the ships rise. I would have a very difficult time going through expansion and ultimately changing our revenue-sharing model. I would struggle with that."

My Thoughts: While Delany didn't say this, I think it's probably a shared sentiment across the various Big Ten programs.  The fact that this came from Ohio State's AD is important too.  If any team in the conference had the clout to demand a bigger piece of the pie, it would be Ohio State due to their long run of conference championships and BCS bowls.  They don't see a benefit to the conference to do so, and that's good news.

It should be great news to others as well (Nebraska and/or Missouri).  The big problem with the Big 12 model is that Texas is taking the largest share of the pie.  Whether that was their idea or not, it's not beneficial to teams like Kansas, Kansas State, or Iowa State to be so far behind Texas in the money department when they're struggling enough as it is. 

For teams looking at the possibility of joining the Big Ten, it's important to know that they'll get a fair share of the pie as well.  They will know that, if they make the jump, they'll be on equal footing with Ohio State, Michigan, or Penn State.  Likewise, they'll be on equal footing with Iowa, Purdue, and Indiana.  No one has the financial advantage or disadvantage.

Rittenberg Writes: "Schools would have to apply, and then they would have to receive eight votes [for admission]. But I would presume that nobody would apply without knowing they were welcome to apply. We’re not interested in embarrassing ourselves, or embarrassing anyone else. So the process of due diligence is a long one, but the process of formal conversations about it is a shorter one..."

My Thoughts: I like this a lot.  Immediately, it puts to rest any of the talk about "so-and-so received an invitation to join the conference."  It doesn't quite work that way.  Nobody receives an invitation per se.  They may be contacted and told that they're welcome to submit an application if they wish, but they won't receive an invitation.

It's also good because the Big Ten doesn't want to get into the situation of causing a large embarrassment for someone else.  Not only can it create an uncomfortable awkwardness for a scorned program within their own conference, but it could potentially damage any future relationship with the Big Ten. 

One thing that Delany has not commented on is whether or not this round of expansion will be the last for a while.  For all we know, this round of expansion could be for one team, with the option of adding two-to-four more teams later.  The Big Ten wouldn't want to burn bridges with a potential future expansion candidate.

Also, it's just bad business.

Rittenberg Writes: Delany on the potential for super conferences: "It's like saying everybody is going to go to a 12-team conference. We didn't. We stayed at 11. I don't necessarily see why if one group does something it thinks is in its best interests, somebody else would imitate it. Unless there were good reasons to imitate it. ... I would be shocked if we would get larger, that other people would automatically get larger."

My Thoughts: To me, this is one of the most important things Delany said.

On the surface, he almost sounds a little naive (okay, more than a little).  Of course others would see a need to expand— if the Big Ten were going to 16 teams. 

If the Big Ten takes only one, or even three teams, there would be a shuffle.  Whoever loses a team to the Big Ten would likely want to investigate replacing that team.  If the Big Ten takes three teams, that's probably at least two conferences that will want to/have to replace lost members. 

It wouldn't trigger a massive realignment, though.  Not necessarily, at any rate.  The Big 12 could pull in a couple of new teams (mid-majors?) without causing any concern to the SEC.  The Pac-10 might want to increase their expansion plans, but even that's doubtful. 

The only scenario that would certainly create mass havoc around the nation would be if the Big Ten created the first Super Conference by going to 16 teams. 

Delany is not a stupid man.  He's masterfully guided the Big Ten to this point by surrounding himself with intelligent people.  They've undoubtedly heard, read, and investigated the various scenarios of what will likely happen when they make their move.

If Delany sees no reason for anyone else to feel the need to expand, it seems clear to me  that he's saying (without coming out and saying) "we're not going to sixteen teams".

I have previously written that I expected the Big Ten to go all out and create the first Super Conference.  After reading Delany's comments, I'm now very certain that they are not looking beyond 14 teams, and may not be looking beyond 12 teams—at least not at this point.

Rittenberg Writes: Michigan coach Rich Rodriguez said preserving the annual Michigan-Ohio State game is paramount when discussing potential division alignments in the Big Ten. "For us, it’s always been at the end [of the regular season] and that’s always had a great buildup and excitement to that," he said

My Thoughts: First off, it's good to see that Rodriguez has a firm grasp on the importance of that rivalry. That's not news though, he demonstrated that a couple of years ago. 

It isn't particularly important to the expansion debate either. 

It does however, let us all know that the coaches are keeping the AD's and school presidents reminded of what's important to the fans.  That rivalry is big in all of football, not just the Big Ten.  It's important to keep it, and as many other rivalries as possible, preserved.

I'm a little nervous as to how the division alignment will pan out.  I don't like any division that has Ohio State, Penn State, and Michigan in the same league.  While I fully believe that Iowa and/or Wisconsin can compete with those programs in more years than people realize, it's not like they're perennial powerhouses.  I don't want a situation that has a lopsided distribution of power.

I also don't know how else to divide a conference that is aligned so symmetrically East-to-West.  An East/West divide seems the only logical way of doing it at this point, and that means that the East Division is going to be the more powerful one.  Maybe the Big Ten will add Nebraska and help even things out a little?

At any rate, I agree with Rodriguez completely on his comment.  Whatever happens, the Michigan/Ohio State rivalry has to stay in tact.

Rittenberg Writes: Illinois coach Ron Zook on the potential ripple effect of expansion: "I don't think the SEC is concerned, although it sounds like they're getting their ducks in a row, trying to see what would happen in case there was a change in the landscape."

My Thoughts: I have two thoughts on this comment:

Zook is stating the obvious.  Right now, the SEC isn't concerned, but they've made it abundantly clear that they will retaliate if it looks like they're threatened in any way by Big Ten expansion.  He's basically stating exactly what everyone already knows—no real insight there.

Why are you even commenting on expansion when you should be worried about how to get more production out of your talented recruits, Coach Zook?  There's no excuse for a team with your level of recruits to go 3-9 last year.  Defer the expansion talk to people who can afford to think about something other than rebuilding their team and saving their job. (Sorry Illinois fans, but I'm more than a little disappointed in Zook's coaching abilities)

While there wasn't anything directly said that would make a Big Ten fan (or hater) gasp in excitement or anticipation, there were some pretty interesting things said all the same. 

It appears that Delany will not be pressured by fans or anyone else into making a premature decision.  He'll investigate every aspect and possibility before making that decision—even if it means that nothing is decided for another year. 

Also, it appears (to me at least) that the 16 team conference is out.  I really don't think Delany would be so naive as to fail to recognize the ramifications such an expansion would have.  I believe his comment was a not-so-veiled way of saying that the conference isn't looking to grow by that big of a leap, and therefore no one needs to panic about a massive realignment yet.

It'll be interesting to see what else comes out of the meetings.  If it's anything beyond injury reports or discussions about schedules, I'm sure I'll have some thoughts.