Big Ten Expansion??? [Archive] - NationalChamps.net

GatorGrad

07-26-2007, 05:28 PM

Check out this article from the USA TODAY:

http://www.usatoday.com/sports/college/football/bigten/2007-07-25-network-expansion_N.htm

Interesting. Could it be that the Big Ten will actually add a 12th team and go to the two-division w/ conference championship game format like the SEC, ACC, and Big 12? Good news if so. A final weekend of play featuring say Ohio St vs Michigan and then Penn St vs Wisconsin to decide division championships with the winners advancing to a Big Ten Championship Game the following week in Indianapolis or Chicago for instance would be fun. Sounds like Syracuse, Rutgers, or Missouri would be the top choices since silly Notre Dame will remain an independent. Maybe they'll join the Big East someday?

Hubbs

07-27-2007, 12:39 PM

Makes sense for the Big 10 and Rutgers. They are in a good market and play Big 10 football anyway.

Blue Hen

07-27-2007, 12:48 PM

Elaborate on "they (Rutgers) play B10 football".............thanks

GatorGrad

07-27-2007, 01:38 PM

jeff4bucks

07-27-2007, 04:23 PM

I was wondering what hubbs meant by Rutgers playing big 10 football (style of football?? , level of competition???)
Lets see how good they are the next few years. Before this past year, no one would mention RU as a potential addition to the big 10 simply because they sucked and no one paid attention. It wouldn't give the Big 10 any more exposure in that region.
I think Pitt would be a better fit. Mizzou could be another choice.

GatorGrad

07-27-2007, 09:21 PM

How would Big Ten fans feel about adding Syracuse?

jeff4bucks

07-28-2007, 02:32 PM

Syracuse is an interesting choice. I would think they are too far geographically. If their program wasn't so down in the dumps right now, I'd be more exited about the idea of 'cuse joining the conference.

kocurt

07-29-2007, 09:28 AM

I would not mind seeing the Big 10 raid the Big 12 and take either Iowa State (since they are already geographically in the conference AND have an in-state Big 10 rival) or Missouri. I dont think either school fits the goal of expanding the TV marketing area though. Still it would be nice to replace one of those schools with one that makes more sense (CSU?) or perhaps TCU.

happjack

07-29-2007, 10:12 AM

The Big Ten expansion talks are about 1 thing that is bringing household's into the Big Ten Network footprint. The Big Ten is charging cable companies $1.10 per household in states that have a Big Ten school and $.10 for non-Big Ten states, this may backfire since most cable companies are not going to spend that much for a channel that is mainly going to show sports like swimming and track & field. Notre Dame has turned them down many times so the top candidates are the following.

Syracuse - Put's them in New York state, has a strong tradition in both football and basketball, and they could bring in the largest amount of households for the BTN. Their main drawback is that they are a small private school in upstate New York and there may not be that big of an outcry if the BTN isnt picked up in NYC.

Rutgers - Large state U in a heavily populated state, would put a kink in Notre Dame's plan to play yearly at the Meadowlands. Drawback's are up until last year they have been the laughing stock of college football, the BTN won't get $1.10 per household in NYC since it's in a differant state than Rutgers.

Missouri - Large State U, in the mid-west(still alot of east coast haters in Big Ten country), has wanted to join for years, brings in a state where they are the only 1a power, and brings in two new tv markets(St. Louis and KC). Drawback's the Big 12 has something like a $5 to $8 million exit fee, the Big Ten has passed them over in the past.

Pitt - Prime recruiting area, most Big Ten type school not in the Big Ten, would bring in alot of research dollars(Big Ten schools share that money), bridges the gap between Penn State and the rest of the conference, building new track, soccer, baseball and softball facilities, a long football history to go along with a great baskeball program. As long as Joe Paterno is alive he will block them from joining(still bitter at them for Pitt "killing" his half assed Eastern Conference in 1982), does not bring a new state into the Big Ten Network, very urban campus.

JamesHowell

07-29-2007, 02:41 PM

If I remember correctly, the Big XII exit fee is $4 million and only if a team leaves with less than 12 months notice.

Old Gold&Black

07-30-2007, 08:26 PM

Two simple issues seem to be at play here:

1. Finding a strong enough academic institution to appease the Big Ten Presidents

2. Tapping into a market that will bring more $$$$$ to the Big Ten

Possibilites:

1. Notre Dame: Always the Big Ten's #1 target. It was rumored ND's faculty was in favor of accepting a Big Ten bid the first time around, but ND football was too busy returning to glory. Now, they're all about the nationwide "return to independence" tour.

2. Iowa State: NO!!! We already have Iowa and the population of Ames isn't large enough to bring in the viewership $$$$$.

3. Missouri: IIRC, a land grant school that fits the Big Ten mold. Would they be willing to leave the same conference as Kansas? In terms of $$$$, would KC and St. Louis bring in more money than an East Coast team? I don't think so....

4. Pitt: Secure all of PA as Big Ten land and any Pitt alumni around NYC. How strong is the Pitt alumni base in NYC?

5: Syracuse: Secure western NY and gain a LARGE share of followers in NYC.

6. Rutgers: Secure all of Jersey, even moreso of Philly, and a share of NYC.

Between Syracuse and Rutgers; it would come down to who could gain the marketshare in NYC, which seems to be Syracuse. Rutger's may be closer, but Jersey is the redheaded stepchild of New York and Syracuse is a state school.

The ultimate wildcard: University of Toronto:

World class academics, a metro area of over 6 Million, all of Canada, the Sky Dome, closer to Big Ten country than Syracuse or Rutgers.

My guess is that it will either be Notre Dame, Missouri, or bust. I couldn't see Pitt, Rutgers, or Syracuse bolting the Big East after the drama they recently went through with BC, Miami, and VT.

happjack

07-31-2007, 08:31 AM

Two simple issues seem to be at play here:
4. Pitt: Secure all of PA as Big Ten land and any Pitt alumni around NYC. How strong is the Pitt alumni base in NYC?

My guess is that it will either be Notre Dame, Missouri, or bust. I couldn't see Pitt, Rutgers, or Syracuse bolting the Big East after the drama they recently went through with BC, Miami, and VT.

Pitt's alumni is spread around the country due to the mass exdous of people from Western PA. starting in the late 70's.

Syracuse would jump to the Big Ten or ACC in a second, they where all ready to go to the ACC a few years ago, remember the ACC didnt want Virginia Tech.

EvilVodka

07-31-2007, 10:28 AM

Rutgers would be a good fit IMO as it would give the Big Ten a presence in New York / New Jersey which would be good for their new TV Network, recruiting, etc. Syracuse or Mizzou would be a good all around fit as well. Some think Pit is a possibility, and I am sure Penn St would love to have them as a conference rival, but I think the Big Ten is looking for a new state/market that they don't already have.

Agreed, and from the article it looks like the prime motivator is to expand the network, and what market beats NYC? Missouri was previously mentioned as a good academic fit, but what market do they really have?

Rutgers has gotta be the pick IMO, and if Rutgers were to get into the BCS this year, then they'd really become attractive

EvilVodka

07-31-2007, 10:40 AM

6. Rutgers: Secure all of Jersey, even moreso of Philly, and a share of NYC.

Between Syracuse and Rutgers; it would come down to who could gain the marketshare in NYC, which seems to be Syracuse. Rutger's may be closer, but Jersey is the redheaded stepchild of New York and Syracuse is a state school.

The ultimate wildcard: University of Toronto:

World class academics, a metro area of over 6 Million, all of Canada, the Sky Dome, closer to Big Ten country than Syracuse or Rutgers.

My guess is that it will either be Notre Dame, Missouri, or bust. I couldn't see Pitt, Rutgers, or Syracuse bolting the Big East after the drama they recently went through with BC, Miami, and VT.

The Empire State building was lit up red after the Louisville win last year (I'll look for the link)...that's as close as you're going to get to capturing NYC

I don't see the Big 10 going after Notre Dame anymore either...everyone knows ND isn't going to join, no need to get spurned twice

Want some more wildcards?

Texas - the Big 10 was interested in them way back in the last days of the SWC...they would fit academically and would definately provide a new market...its an ugly geographic fit though

Boston College - they're a decent fit...they've been a good addition to the ACC IMO

UConn - good academic fit...kind of an eastern version of Mizzou...they'd definately boost Big 10 basketball, which is probably an aspect Jim Delaney and co. haven't thought of yet

here's the link:
http://proxy.espn.go.com/ncf/columns/story?columnist=schlabach_mark&id=2656070

"Afterward, when Schiano was asked if everything on Thursday night-- the school's first victory over a top-five opponent, the unbelievable atmosphere (they even lighted the Empire State Building in New York Scarlet red as a tribute to the team) and the possibility of playing in a lucrative BCS bowl -- was what he imagined Rutgers could be, Schiano shook his head."

http://assets.espn.go.com/photo/2006/1109/ncf_a_empirestate_195.jpg

GatorGrad

07-31-2007, 10:53 AM

Mizzou would bring the St Louis market into the Big Ten...

EvilVodka

07-31-2007, 11:02 AM

Mizzou would bring the St Louis market into the Big Ten...

ya...that just doesn't really impress me when you could try and get your foot in the door in NYC (sorry St. Louis natives)...

Hell, you've got a Big XII fan on here wishing that they would take Mizzou lol

Red Empire State building...thats what impresses me if I'm in charge of Big 10 expansion...$$$ and NYC

http://assets.espn.go.com/photo/2006/1109/ncf_a_empirestate_195.jpg

happjack

07-31-2007, 02:22 PM

buckeyejim

07-31-2007, 08:54 PM

According to the Big Ten bylaws the only Div. 1 schools the Big Ten can add are the following.

Buffalo
Iowa State
Maryland
Missouri
Nebraska
Pittsburgh
Rutgers
Syracuse

Any expansion must be within, or next to, current Big Ten territory along with the school being a member of the Association of American Universities.

Care to share the location you found that "bylaw" with us? In 1999 the Big Ten formally invited Notre Dame and they are not a member of the Association of American Universities. That is a fact. That Association of American Universities is something that all of the Big Ten members happen to be members of.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Association_of_American_Universities

GatorGrad

07-31-2007, 11:24 PM

My guess is either Syracuse or Rutgers...

happjack

08-01-2007, 08:21 AM

Care to share the location you found that "bylaw" with us? In 1999 the Big Ten formally invited Notre Dame and they are not a member of the Association of American Universities. That is a fact. That Association of American Universities is something that all of the Big Ten members happen to be members of.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Association_of_American_Universities

Notre Dame would have joinied the AAU if they accepted the Big Ten invite. The Big Ten was going to be flexable on that issue since it was Notre Dame and it would have been about 5 or 6 years before ND fully joined the conference giving them to to go thru the AAU membership process.

EvilVodka

08-01-2007, 03:13 PM

Here's the Barry Alvarez article on expansion if anyone hasn't read it:

http://www.madison.com/wsj/home/sports/badgersFB/203208

And here's the latest from Dennis Dodd, who suggests Texas as a strong possibility:

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/sportsline/main10276524.shtml

JMO of course...but I think it would be a huge mistake for Texas to leave the Big XII for a league that it really has nothing in common with besides academics...

And I don't think Texas fans will get all that excited about Indiana, Illinois, Purdue, Northwestern, Iowa...most Texas fans will be like "who the hell is this team?"...not to mention that if they want to keep the rivalries with Texas A&M, and OU, then they're going to end up with an incredibly hard slate of games each year...Texas football will go down the drain IMO

GatorGrad

08-01-2007, 04:35 PM

I don't understand this quote from the first article:

"Some of the non-conference teams that we're forced to schedule with our 12th game really have us over a barrel (and) are charging us an arm and a leg," Alvarez said. "It's not right. "We have to find a solution. Obviously this would be a solution where you play another conference game."

How would going to 12 teams and conference championship game format increase the # of conference games that they play? They already play 8 conference games. The SEC/Big 12/ACC all have a conference championship game format, but still play 8 games. Would they think about playing 9 games?

EvilVodka

08-02-2007, 12:22 PM

http://www.collegeblitz.com/live/2006/smith/073107.html

This guy seems pretty convinced it will be Missouri

buckeyejim

08-02-2007, 12:40 PM

I'm pretty confident that the Big Ten will expand to 12 if it's Notre Dame. If it not Notre Dame, the Big Ten will stay at 11 schools.

Seven

08-02-2007, 01:52 PM

And here's the latest from Dennis Dodd, who suggests Texas as a strong possibility:

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/sportsline/main10276524.shtml

JMO of course...but I think it would be a huge mistake for Texas to leave the Big XII for a league that it really has nothing in common with besides academics...

IIRC, aren't Texas and A&M under some kind of state mandated deal to stay together? I seem to recall this coming up when the old Southwest conference dissolved. UT was thinking about the Pac 10, but the P10 didn't want A&M, or something like that. Maybe I'm off base here, maybe someone with more insight than I can shed some light on this, I just seem to recall some kind of deal where it was both or none.

GatorGrad

08-02-2007, 02:16 PM

Texas isn't going to the Big Ten...no way.

buckeyejim

08-02-2007, 09:42 PM

Again, I'm pretty confident that the Big Ten will expand to 12 ONLY if it's Notre Dame. If it not Notre Dame, the Big Ten will stay at 11 schools.

Seven

08-03-2007, 07:40 AM

Texas isn't going to the Big Ten...no way.

Agreed. Didn't mean to imply I thought they would, only as a point of conversation that they couldn't alone even if they wanted to.

JamesHowell

08-03-2007, 08:30 AM

If it is Notre Dame (which it won't be), it is a done deal.

Missouri wants in, but the Big Ten doesn't seem to be in a hurry to look their direction.

Delaney actually mentioned Texas several years ago. They would come if invited and be a good fit. The Big XII has always (like the Big East) been viewed as a transitional conference. Most experts have predicted that Texas would eventually be part of either the Big Ten or Pac 10 and Oklahoma and Texas A&M a part of the SEC. If Notre Dame doesn't actively seek admission and if the Big Ten decides to pursue expansion, Texas is a likely candidate.

GatorGrad

08-03-2007, 10:28 AM

Can't see Texas joining the Big Ten to play games at PSU, OSU, Michigan, etc in November. They have it made right now. They bring in top 5 recruiting classes with ease and are in a position where every year they beat Oklahoma, they have a very good shot at winning the Big 12 and playing in a BCS Bowl Game. Not to mention their rivalries in the Big 12 that they would need to leave behind.

GatorGrad

08-03-2007, 05:20 PM

Ah yes...thanks for pointing that out. All fixed now. That's what happens when you try to type at midnight!

JamesHowell

08-04-2007, 06:31 AM

Think academics and money - if Texas was invited, they would accept.

lambertjr

08-05-2007, 03:08 PM

I think Pitt is the best choice.
Notre Dame doesn't want anybody screwing up their tv deal and having to lock in a big10 schedule.

JamesHowell

08-05-2007, 05:19 PM

Pitt has nothing to offer.

Double Nickel

08-05-2007, 10:04 PM

Think academics and money - if Texas was invited, they would accept.

Wwwheewwww ..........that reeks of Big 10 arrogance. Who do you think you are ??? Where do you get off thinking schools like Texas would even consider the Big 10 ??

You tell me one good reason why Texas would go to the Big 11 ?

There's not one.

They sure don't need the money.

Texas has long traditional rivalries with A&M and OU. You think for one minute they're going to scrap either one of those to play in a conference 1,000 miles away ???????? You outta your mind .

Or you think they will play a Big 10 schedule and keep both OU and A&M as non conference games ???? Not in a million years.

And that will not help their recruiting in their home state .......... it would open the door for both A&M and OU to get even more of the top Texas players who would have no interest in playing half their conference games 1,000 miles away from the state of Texas. It would subject UT to third rate status in their own state. I promise you Texas HS players aren't just dreaming about playing Michigan State.

Not to mention the travel for the students and alumni . Not in a million years would UT consider that, they'd laugh at that proposal.

This has to be one of the most arrogant and misguided proposals I've ever heard. It could only be the product of Big 10 message board posters who have no clue about reality ......... and that the Big 10 ain't all that.

Hey Howell, don't kid yourself.

GatorGrad

08-05-2007, 11:27 PM

Double Nickel

08-06-2007, 07:54 AM

Not to mention the increased travel cost for all other Texas sports having to go to Wisconsin, Michigan, Penn St, etc for men's basketball, women's basketball, volleyball, etc. Texas may leave the Big 12 some day, but not for the Big Ten IMO.

Why would they leave the Big 12 and where would they go ?

There's no other conf scenario that makes sense for them.

And btw, Texas is not beating Oklahoma " every year " , as you said above. Two of the last five is not exactly every year. And they lost to A&M last year and should have lost to Nebraska, they had no business winning that game. Texas is far from dominating the Big 12 in football, which is the only sport that really matters in Austin. The Big 12 has just been in a down cycle overall for the past couple of years.

GatorGrad

08-06-2007, 11:22 AM

Why would they leave the Big 12 and where would they go ?

There's no other conf scenario that makes sense for them.

And btw, Texas is not beating Oklahoma " every year " , as you said above. Two of the last five is not exactly every year. And they lost to A&M last year and should have lost to Nebraska, they had no business winning that game. Texas is far from dominating the Big 12 in football, which is the only sport that really matters in Austin. The Big 12 has just been in a down cycle overall for the past couple of years.

1) I didn't say that they WOULD leave the Big 12. I don't think they will. I said that they MIGHT leave, but not for the Big Ten. My point was that IF they ever left, I could see them going to the SEC or PAC 10 before the Big Ten.

2) I didn't say that Texas beats OU every year. This is what I said:

They bring in top 5 recruiting classes with ease and are in a position where every year they beat Oklahoma, they have a very good shot at winning the Big 12 and playing in a BCS Bowl Game.

Read carefully. My point was that they are in a position where every year that they beat Oklahoma, they have a good shot at winning the Big 12 and playing in a BCS Bowl Game. In other words, beat Oklahoma and Texas is USUALLY playing for championships. Not that they beat Oklahoma all the time. Just that when they do, they have a shot at a big season.

Double Nickel

08-06-2007, 11:44 AM

1) I didn't say that they WOULD leave the Big 12. I don't think they will. I said that they MIGHT leave, but not for the Big Ten. My point was that IF they ever left, I could see them going to the SEC or PAC 10 before the Big Ten.

2) I didn't say that Texas beats OU every year. This is what I said:

They bring in top 5 recruiting classes with ease and are in a position where every year they beat Oklahoma, they have a very good shot at winning the Big 12 and playing in a BCS Bowl Game.

Read carefully. My point was that they are in a position where every year that they beat Oklahoma, they have a good shot at winning the Big 12 and playing in a BCS Bowl Game. In other words, beat Oklahoma and Texas is USUALLY playing for championships. Not that they beat Oklahoma all the time. Just that when they do, they have a shot at a big season.

Aahhhhhhhhhhh OK ..... I see how you meant that now.

But I can't see Texas leaving the Big 12 unless A&M goes with them ........ and there's no chance of that ever happening.

EvilVodka

08-08-2007, 02:26 PM

I've read hundreds of threads and articles on Big 10 expansion and I thought I'd give an updated opinion...

I do think the Big 10 will expand soon, and I think it will probably be either Missouri or Nebraska

I also think the Big 10 will look at Texas, but UT won't join for several reasons, among them travel costs and the loss of rivalries with A&M and OU...

As for Syracuse and Rutgers, they'll probably get a glance, but neither one has the football umph to really capture large markets, or make people subscribe

Missouri and Nebraska will probably be looked at the hardest and one of them will be chosen IMO

And now for the shocker....the Big 10 won't go to two divisions and host a championship game (at least not right off)...I'm betting they go to a 9 game conference schedule, which isn't a whole lot different than right now as each Big 10 team misses 2 conference mates per year...its the easiest way to add a team without really changing the status quo...hell, they'll probably stick with the Big 10 name for awhile as well

Also, Nebraska or Mizzou would create balance if they ever did go to divisions:

West
Nebraska/Mizzou
Minnesota
Wisconsin
Northwestern
Illinois
Iowa

East
Michigan
Michigan State
Ohio State
Indiana
Purdue
Penn State

They're both AAU members, they're both midwest schools, and they'd both fit well within the Big 10 footprint

If you could combine Missouri and Nebraska, they'd make the perfect addition....Missouri brings the markets, but Nebraska brings the name brand

11 teams sucks...bringing in another big-name program and another state, and going to 12 with a 9 game conference schedule will solve alot of problems, and I think thats what the Big 10 is going to do

================================================== =======
Here's the AAU membership list...from this list you can make a short list of possible Big 10 expansion candidates:

http://www.aau.edu/aau/members.html

GatorGrad

08-08-2007, 02:53 PM

EvilVodka

08-08-2007, 03:04 PM

EV - Where did you hear that they would go to 12 teams but NOT have a CCG? If they would still miss two teams on the schedule, then the possibility still exists to have two unbeaten 9-0 teams declared "Big Ten Champs" with no chance at those teams playing each other, and nothing would have been solved. This would be disappointing to me as a college football fan. A Big Ten Championship Game in Indianapolis or Chicago would be fun to see.

I haven't heard it anywhere, but I've read where Delaney seems pretty adament against a championship game

Also, alot of fans seemed concerned about the sanctity of the Ohio State-Michigan game at the end of the season, and the Big 10 presidents might have concerns about extending the season with a championship game...while it hasn't been mentioned anywhere, the evidence points against the use of a championship game...

Going to a 9-game conf. schedule (something Alvarez has addressed) but not dividing into divisions with a championship game is the easiest way for the Big 10 to add another program...it adds a program without really changing anything

Its disappointing to me as well, because I'd love to see a Big 10 championship game, but I just don't see it happening anytime soon...the Big 10 moves slowly...it will take a couple years similar to '02 with Ohio State and Iowa before they consider a championship game IMO

CJHawkeyes

08-08-2007, 03:39 PM

OOC, why has everyone decided that fixed divisions are necessary? Why not have generic division names and realign every few years based on recent performance? Also, why are divisions even necessary? I don't understand why a conference cannot just match the top two. Even now it is possible for teams to share the same number of common opponents with a division and non-division rival.

JamesHowell

08-08-2007, 04:17 PM

Divisions are required for CCG by the NCAA bylaws - a conference must have at least 12 games and be divided into divisions in order to host a championship game.

GatorGrad

08-08-2007, 05:08 PM

Also, alot of fans seemed concerned about the sanctity of the Ohio State-Michigan game at the end of the season, and the Big 10 presidents might have concerns about extending the season with a championship game...while it hasn't been mentioned anywhere, the evidence points against the use of a championship game...

As long as Ohio St-Michigan was played on the final weekend, and they were in the same divisions, I don't see how the game would suffer. It would be exciting if they were playing for a division title and berth in the Big Ten Title Game, no?

Big Ten presidents being "concerned about extending the season with a championship game?" Come on...it's just ONE extra game for just TWO teams in the entire conference.

I think that the money for a Big Ten Championship game will ultimately be too much for the Big Ten to turn down.

CJHawkeyes

08-08-2007, 08:00 PM

Divisions are required for CCG by the NCAA bylaws - a conference must have at least 12 games and be divided into divisions in order to host a championship game.

I know its a rule, but why is it a rule? I can see where some may prefer a CCG that matches division champs rather than 1st place versus 2nd place. I also recognize that divisions make it easier to avoid having two teams meet in consecutive weeks. Still, I don't understand why a 12-team conference is obligated to split into divisions to have a CCG. Why is it any concern of the NCAA's whether a 12 team conference has divisions or not? Again, it is possible for two non-division rivals to play more HTH/CO games than two division rivals. Therefore, why allow 6-2 to beat 7-1 because of divisional alignments that don't guarantee more similar schedules?

kocurt

08-09-2007, 08:22 AM

As long as Ohio St-Michigan was played on the final weekend, and they were in the same divisions, I don't see how the game would suffer. It would be exciting if they were playing for a division title and berth in the Big Ten Title Game, no?

Big Ten presidents being "concerned about extending the season with a championship game?" Come on...it's just ONE extra game for just TWO teams in the entire conference.

I think that the money for a Big Ten Championship game will ultimately be too much for the Big Ten to turn down.

It is my personal opinion, that you hit the nail on the head with the last sentence. In fact, I think we will soon see all the major BCS conferences go to twelve members with a championship game. In the end, those conferences that DONT are going to miss out on a lot of money and eventually fall behind those that do.................I think the fans would like the conference championship format too. I know the Big 12 and SEC fans all take as much pride in winning the conference championship game as they do a bowl game.

Seven

08-09-2007, 09:57 AM

I think that the money for a Big Ten Championship game will ultimately be too much for the Big Ten to turn down.

I wonder about that. Take last year as an example. Would the CCG have made more money than two B10 teams in BCS bowls? IF OSU had to beat UM to get to a CCG and lost to a 1 loss Wisky, how many go to BCS games? The winner most likely, but the loser? Maybe, maybe not. And UM would almost certainly not have. The cenference, as I see it, has more to lose than gain by going to a divisional, CCG setup. Same in 2002. If OSU and Iowa met in a CCG, the winner certainly goes on to the BCS, but the loser? Maybe, maybe not.

These are all just questions. I do not know what the payout difference is. Does a CCG automatically mean more money for the conference? Does the additional BCS payout mean more than the CCG? Maybe someone with more knowledge than I can clarify.