Steve, there are more people than not that enjoy your posts, don't listen to haters.
Michigan sources on Big Ten expansion
- Thread starter SteveDeace
- Start date
Steve, there are more people than not that enjoy your posts, don't listen to haters.
Hawke
Well-Known Member
I actually enjoy listening to Deace give his opinion, even tho I don't always agree with it. The OP on this thread had the appearance of a drive-by due to the fact that the source of his info was vague, to say the least.
As far as hitting the ignore button or reading someone's post is concerned; while the bigotry displayed on message boards does get tiresome it seems unlikely that it will cease any time soon. Not on sports or political boards anyway. I come to sports message boards knowing that many have agreed to disagree and leave it at that. If a bigot enters a thread, I tend to ignore the post w/o actually hitting an ignore button. The bottom line is nobody can bother me unless I choose to let them.
As far as hitting the ignore button or reading someone's post is concerned; while the bigotry displayed on message boards does get tiresome it seems unlikely that it will cease any time soon. Not on sports or political boards anyway. I come to sports message boards knowing that many have agreed to disagree and leave it at that. If a bigot enters a thread, I tend to ignore the post w/o actually hitting an ignore button. The bottom line is nobody can bother me unless I choose to let them.
ajones1996
Well-Known Member
if the Big 10 can get Texas then thats probably the only school they add....same goes if they get get Notre Dame
InNormwetrust
Well-Known Member
I bet they would still try and get 2 more schools after that. Nebraska and possibly Rutgers/Maryland. Texas by the way, would be awesome. I know Jon is against it, not sure what his reasons are, I'm sure he has valid points. I would welcome the competition though, you can't become the best without challenging yourself. It would suck to be Indiana or another B10 cellar dweller because you know, they aren't going anywhere for at least the next 30 years.
I seriously doubt this is what Michigan "wants".
They didn't want Penn St & I doubt they want Texas.
In fact, without knowing squat about this, my guess
would be a NO vote from Michigan on Texas.
I don't think they'd be alone voting NO.
briankaldenberg
Well-Known Member
Deace my source tells me we need to start doing some personal branding for you. SteveDeace.com - own it...
JonDMiller
Publisher/Founder
I think he did that intentionally once, to prove a point to me. He said he could make an accurate post of it being 70 degrees and sunny outside, and then leave.
And that he would return hours later and people would argue with him about those factual statements, just because they want to argue with him. He was right.
On this, he's just passing along what he is hearing...this is a popular topic, and seemingly something interesting pops up every day
JonDMiller
Publisher/Founder
As for Texas, I just don't want that. Not that what I want matters at all. Because I think Iowa gets in the same league..and if its Texas, it will be hard not to bring A&M along with them, politically, down there.
Now..that is how I have felt...but if Texas comes in, and is in Iowa's division, Iowa recruiting in Texas is probably helped...but we already have to battle Michigan and Ohio State and Penn State in this league, giant universities with the biggest budgets in the sport...Texas is the biggest of them all. Perhaps I am just looking at this from too much of a narrow focus.
But if you have Texas, A&M and Missouri, Iowa is going to be in their division...and if its a four pod set up, then that sucks, IMO
Now..that is how I have felt...but if Texas comes in, and is in Iowa's division, Iowa recruiting in Texas is probably helped...but we already have to battle Michigan and Ohio State and Penn State in this league, giant universities with the biggest budgets in the sport...Texas is the biggest of them all. Perhaps I am just looking at this from too much of a narrow focus.
But if you have Texas, A&M and Missouri, Iowa is going to be in their division...and if its a four pod set up, then that sucks, IMO
briankaldenberg
Well-Known Member
If I could choose any team I'd choose Texas. It would be glorious.
Raziel
Well-Known Member
If the Big Ten goes to 16, I have ZERO doubt it will be a four pod system. And at this point, from what we've been hearing, it seems that 16 is the most likely number for expansion.
If we assume that Texas and TAMU are not tied at the hip....and I don't think they are, from what I have gathered from both Texas and TAMU fans (TAMU fans seem to want to go to the SEC to rekindle rivalries with the likes of Arkansas and LSU - Texas will never go to the SEC) that rivalry could easily set up as a non conference rivalry....of course, that means that Texas would be playing TAMU and Oklahoma in their non conference schedule, which would be brutal....but lets assume that the Big Ten could get Texas and Texas alone.
We know for sure that, in a four pod system, Wisconsin/Iowa/Minnesota would all likely be in a division together....leaving one vacancy. If you assume Texas is in that spot, it wouldn't be so bad for Iowa.
I fully believe that if the Big Ten goes to 16 with a four pod system we would only play 7 conference games per year. Each team would play the 3 teams in their division and 4 teams from a "bracketed" division - the team with the best record from the two bracketed divisions would play in the CCG against the champion from the other two bracketed divisions. I know it seems odd that the Big Ten would add 5 teams and end up playing one less conference game, but it offers two distinct advantages: 1.) it allows Big Ten teams to be more flexible in the OOC games they schedule (marquee match ups would be easier to make work - allowing 5 OOC games would also be a HUGE selling point to a team like Notre Dame/Texas) and 2.) it would guarantee that there would never be a rematch in the CCG.
So, in that scenario, your "bracketed division" would likely change every two years...meaning that you would play every team in the Big Ten twice every six seasons.
What this means, is that it would likely be impossible for Iowa to play a really brutal schedule every year. Iowa would only have to play Texas every year...for two seasons we would likely have to play Texas/OSU/Michigan, which would be brutal, but we'd never have the possibility of playing ND, Texas, Nebraska, Ohio State, Michigan, Penn State all in the same season....you'd only be playing 2 or 3 of those "elite" teams in any given season...most of the time you'd probably only play two of them due to the schedule rotation.
Iowa being in Texas' division would be a big advantage, IMO, because in a year when Iowa was good, they might be only one upset of Texas away from winning our division and having a shot at the conference title game - and I'm all for playing Texas in IC in November.
Also, the biggest advantage would be the recruiting exposure. It would be huge for Iowa to be able to guarantee Texas recruits two games in their home state throughout their career at Iowa.
Last edited:
Hawkeye2929
Well-Known Member
Texas is THE ONLY TRUE total package out there that would be available, and yes, this includes ND. They are a national program, add a huge number of basic cable customers, and have great academics and research. They should be every leagues number one choice.
ND is a national program, but they offer no guaranteed basic cable customers and have very limited research and graduate academics.
ND is a national program, but they offer no guaranteed basic cable customers and have very limited research and graduate academics.
tiggerhawk
Well-Known Member
Whoever uses the ID of Steve Deace on the internet, the orginal is a poorly informed writer for the Detroit Free Press who arrarently doesn't consider finding the facts to be part of a reporter's job.
His premises in this instance--that the BT wants Mizzou, even more wants Notre Dame & Texas, and the Big Ten "will be the laughingstock" of college athletics is it "screws up" on both ND & TX--have absolutely no truth to them and are contrary to events that really happened and to the priorities and choices governing the Big Ten's actions and those of ND & Texas.
Known FACTS: UT-Austin will either remain in the same conference with TX A&M or move with it to another, but they are joined at the hip as Siamese twins by the political dictates of Texas state government. Any mention of UT-Austin that doesn't link it to TAM lacks credibility...period; neither ND or Mizzou is a major research university, the first and most essential of criteria for an invitation to join the BT consortium...probably the only difference in their respective situations is that Notre Dame doesn't want to become a research-oriented university and has no desire to join the BT, while Mizzou would love to be asked to play in the big sandbox with the big boys, but the political & economic reality is that the Mizzou state legislature & the local pols have NEVER made educaton a high priority worthy of adequate funding, and in this era of serious budget shortfalls accompanied by the strength of loonie tax protests in Mizzou that is not going to change in time for the massive immediate spending necessary to bring eventual BT-quality research facilities, programs, support resources.
What is at stake and what motivate the BT consortium to consider expansion at this time is the perception (shared by major research universities everywhere in the nation--hence talk of PAC-10, etc also searching possibilities) that federal government funding, grants, contracts, patent fees, etc for university-based research is a high, major priority of the Obama Administration, its next objective beyond financial recovery and nationl health reform.
What makes the Big Ten's situation different from that of other athletic conferences is that the BT alone is more than just an athletic conference: the BT's principle business is twofold: (1) shared programs and facilities--on every continent in the world as well throughout the USA, and
(2) enhancing the fiancial and material resources of each of the member schools.
Athletic budgets at the BT schools are less than five percent of their total budgets, about ten percent of research budgets. And if the BT succeeds in its objective of dramatically improving its positioning for funds from the government, major corporations, and the foundations, the financial dominance of research purposes will become even greater.
What seems odd is the extent to which fans and supporters of the Big Ten schools' athletic programs often appear to be unaware of the unique status of the Big Ten and the reasons why it is the most highly respected conference, why it is in the envy of other conferences with academically strong members--the PAC-10, the ACC, even the Ivy League.
The fundamental point is that college athletic teams represent their schools, not the other way around. The prestige of the Big Ten is that it is the ONLY athletic conference comprised ENTIRELY of highly regarded academic institutions ALL of them major research universities. Only the Ivy League schools operate at the level of researc programs of the BT and its member institutions. NO other conference is even close to the BT in the number of professional & advanced degrees granted by the BT schools. The historic consequence of this is the ironic paradox that even as the "rust belt" states decline in population and economic pre-eminence, their universities in the Big Ten consortium continue to be the most influential public universities in the nation---in the world, for that matter.
tiggerhawk
Well-Known Member
Of course Delaney has no real knowledge of what will come of the BT presidents' deliberations until they tell him AFTERWARDS He is on the outside, just alot closer to the scene than any of the rest of us, including the media. To his credit, he has made it clear that he does not know what will happen, only the timetable & the procedures that will be followed.
busabus114
Well-Known Member
Careful what you wish for...Texas sure sounds good but it would make life for Iowa that much tougher
HandsyHobo
Well-Known Member
Agree in principle. In my original post in this thread ("University of Toronto"), I just meant that the source of a "source" of a "source" shouldn't be taken too seriously... especially considering how crazy something like Georgia Tech is.
Steve-Your insight is appreciated. I for one, enjoy all of the Big Ten speculation. When the music stops, it will be interesting to see who is sitting in the Big Ten chairs. Mizzou has been openly lobbying for entrance into the Big Ten and I say give Mizzou the welcome mat. I'd like to see Nebraska also...and speculate that both Texas & Notre Dame are longshots. Huckabee-Deace 2012
