Mr. Paterno Heads to Chicago
The Big Ten football meetings get under way this week and the new radical octogenarian, Joe Paterno, is on a mission of sorts.
AdorableTwo weeks ago, Paterno gave us some help passing the long days of May when he suggested that the conference should look to add a 12th team and the championship game that would come with such a move. It’s been the offseason of challenging the status quo in college football and Paterno was only trying to add some shake to the Big Ten, which has been taking a national beating, both on the field and on the internet the past few years.
Last week, Bret Bielema joined the cause, saying the following to ESPN’s Rittenberg:
“It’d be great. Everybody would welcome a 12th team in the league and maybe having a championship game.”
We’re not sure what Bielema means by everybody, but it can’t include who Paterno referred to as the polite, but snickering handful of people that dominate the conference. At any rate, perhaps emboldened by the flank support from the guy that clock-rule-punked him a few years back, Paterno is charging ahead into the meetings full steam. He plans on tracking down the powers-that-be and getting answers, damn you, answers, as to why the league isn’t exploring expansion and leading the charge into a college football postseason:
“It makes sense that we have a playoff,” Paterno said last night at the the 35th annual Daily News-Eagles City All-Star Game banquet at Dugan’s Restaurant in Northeast Philly. “I don’t know what the problems are, but I don’t like to hear the phony reasons why they don’t have it. ‘The kids are going to spend too much time away from class.’ Aw, come on. Look what they do with the basketball [NCAA Tournament]. All the other divisions in NCAA football have playoffs. I really think a playoff is fairer.”
Unfortunately, he’s not likely to get anywhere. We won’t get to a playoff overnight and the Big Ten won’t be adding a 12th team in the near future, but you’re fooling yourself if you think both won’t eventually come. Paterno realizes that while we’re sitting around and deliberating over moves against tradition, other conferences are moving ahead. These moves don’t have to be reckless, but they do have to be made. Paterno’s charge somewhat calms my recurring nightmare of waking up in 50 years and seeing the Big Ten as the new Ivy of football. And what better than to have a high profile 82 year old with no fear of burning bridges to push the point on much needed changes.
Paterno’s crusade won’t be the only agenda item this week as the conference must also decide whether to renew five of the league’s seven bowl contracts. Though most bowls are expected to be extended, there’s a bit of intrigue surrounding the renewal of the Capital One contract. The bowl does pay well, but there are concerns about the stadium and whether another bowl may make a sweeter offer in an attempt to became the fifth major:
The league’s contract with the Capital One Bowl earns the league nearly $4.25 million, the top payout among non-BCS bowl games. But Orlando’s 73-year-old stadium’s potential $175 million renovation has stalled, according to the Orlando Sentinel. The paper reports a slowdown in tourism taxes has placed the project on that community’s back shelf for possibly 10 more years.
And those looking to move up?
There’s also speculation that bowls like the Cotton, Outback or Houston could vault past the Capital One Bowl as college football’s best non-BCS bowl. The Cotton Bowl, once considered among the four best bowls with the Rose, Sugar and Orange, moves into a $1 billion palace in Arlington, Texas, this year.
The Cotton looks really appealing, what with the platinum urinals that Jerry Jones is putting into that stadium, but an ideal scenario would be one where the SEC tie-in is kept and that league’s representative is forced to play a postseason game outside the land of sweet tea.
Joe has a point on the phony BS excuses the college presidents (looking at you Gordon!) throw out to avoid a D1A playoff. How about showing some integrity and honesty and just saying you don’t want to pass on the tens of millions in revenue generated by the current bowl system (which has officially jumped the shark now that every team that wins six games is “bowl elligible!?!?!”
Someone correct me if I am wrong, but adding a 12th team goes way beyond the athletic field, in fact it has little to do with athletics. A school has to meet research, grants and academic standards before they are even considered for addition into the conference. I remember when Penn State joined, none of the AD’s knew until after the fact, because it is all academic based.
I want a playoff as much as anyone and the B10 needs to play football into December, but I think Joe Pa is going about it wrong. He needs to be advocating another bye week within the season, so they do play that first week of December. The conference does not need a 12th team and a B10 title game, just some smarter scheduling.
so what you’re saying is, there might already be a 12th team, we just don’t know it yet?
I don’t have a problem with a 12th team if it’s a good choice — and there are a couple of good ones out there besides Notre Dame.
Though I can somewhat get the resistance to a championship game because fears over what it would do to The Game, I can’t see these things going away anytime soon and appreciate Joe raising a little bit of hell.
The Big Ten has a football problem and we have to be proactive in trying to find a way to make it better.
I really dont see how a 12th team affects “The Game”. Fact is, tradition eventually has to be stretched a little. The B10 is no longer a dominant football conference and there are no signs of change for the better. Except talks of a 12th team and champ. game to get the conference back into relevance. Today’s recruit views the B10 as boring, old, and weak. Not necessarily referring to OSU, but we have to have UM, PSU return to yearly dominance, not to mention schools like Ill. and MSU be in the conversation.
We all love The Game, but fact is that it doesn’t hold the national relevance it once did, maybe for a kid that grew up in Ohio, but its not enough to convince the kid from California to come play in Ohio. If we had 3 or 4 high profile teams, with the lure of a primetime champ. game, that might be enough exposure to turn the tide.
I’m sorry but blue chips dont avoid the big ten because there’s no primetime championship game. I’d think climate and lack of big time head coaches across the board has way more to do with it than that. I also don’t see how a 12th team and champ game automatically adds any relevance. If the teams competing in it are mediocre, it wont matter if there’s a championship game.
I think the lack of a championship game isn’t a huge factor but you’re kidding yourself if you don’t think it’s a factor at all. It’s another prime time national television game against elite competition.
Or it is another opportunity in which to lose (in a meaningless game) and screw yourself from playing in the national championship.
All it takes is to have one bad game at the wrong time.
You may be the best team in the nation but if you play with fire too many times you are going to get burned. Why subject yourself to a game that is pointless 95% of the time?
I can buy that argument and it certainly weighs against adding a 12th. I’m more in tune with bringing playoffs to college football, but I’m not opposed to expanding the conference either.
I’m not totally opposed to adding a 12th. However, I like the Big Ten the way it is.
I just want to see conference championships to actually mean something before the Big Ten goes and starts one. Look at all the other sports out there. If you have the best record in the conference at the end of the regular season, you get rewarded with something. Whether it be home-field advantage or being the #1 seed in the conference playoffs.
College football is the only sport where you can have a 12-0 team play an 8-4 team for the conference championship.
If you are #1 or #2 in the country, a conference championship can only hurt you. There is no benefit for you to play it. You risk injuries to key players and you risk losing your spot in the NCG.
Ducking every obstacle possible to get the best chance of playing for a title certaintly isn’t helping Ohio St. and the B10. If Im correct the SEC was the first to institute a champ. game and while at first a few good SEC teams suffered, eventually people came around to see that throwing yourself into the fire every week really did form the best teams around. Is there any question the SEC isn’t the best conference? Im as big an OSU homer there is, but we are battling to be the THIRD best conference right now. Missing out on the big game because of playing tough comp. won’t be a problem for the B10, this problem has already been solved. Primetime games against elite competition can ONLY help.
If that is the case, iball, then why not just play stiffer out-of-conference competition during the regular season instead of Akron, Eastern Michigan, and New Mexico State?
The games would actually mean something and would better prepare the buckeyes for their bowl game.
and I don’t think OSU playing USC, Miami, Virginia Tech, Cincinatti, Oklahoma and Tennessee would be considered ducking obstacles.
Just add one more game against a top-tier team a year. That way OSU would get more national exposure.
I don’t think installing a Big 10 Conference Championship game is going to bring respect to the conference. Going out and beating top teams from other conferences will, whether it be during the regular season or bowl season.
SC Buckeye,
All your points are valid, though my interest is bettering the B10 as a whole, OSU is the exception in the B10 in terms of national respect, yes we may have lost 3 4 in a row now on the national stage, but no one can deny we belong in the conversation, except to say we play a weak sched. pertaining to our conference foes.
Not to keep bringing up the SEC but they are the current measuring stick, every team plays a quality out of conference opponent every year, UF plays Fla. St. and Miami on a yearly basis! Not to mention the guantlet they run in conference and top it off with the SEC champ. game.
Again, while scheduling more quality out of conference foes may help OSU, I think helping the conference as a whole is the better long term solution. We cant be stubborn and ignore changing national trends while everyone else passes us by just because we think our way is the best, are you listening Notre dame???
In all honesty…if Notre Dame doesn’t join the Big Ten then it is a moot point. They make the most sense out of the laundry list of teams. They have the “research, grants and academic standards” to join any conference and they are right in the middle of Big Ten country. If it is not Notre Dame then I don’t care.
I personally don’t really want a 12th team just to piss off all the SEC, Big 12 and ACC fans out there.
A conference championship game should be an “IF NECESSARY” game. If two teams have the exact same record at the end of the season, then they play the game. If not, then there is no game and someone is crowned conference champion at the end of the regular season.
Extend the season with another bye week (Hello McFly!!! extra rest for your players), get rid of “sharing” titles and call it a wrap.
And if two teams have identical 7-1 records but didn’t play each other? How do you determine who wins? In such a system, Alabama (who went undefeated in the SEC) would have won the SEC last year when Florida ended up being the better team.
Did you read my entire post?
I said “if two teams have the exact same record at the end of the season, then play the game.”
Penn State won the Big Ten title last year…plain and simple. The Buckeyes were 10-2 and the Lions were 11-1. It isn’t rocket science. 1 loss is better than 2 losses.
Alabama deserved to be SEC Champions at the end of the regular season. They were undefeated and beat Ole Miss who Florida lost to. What more proof do you need?
Yeah in retrospect they weren’t the best team but that can be said for a lot of games. Was Oklahoma really the best team to challenge Florida (cough cough USC)? Was Ohio State really deserving of going up against LSU in 2007?
We can all go back and say “They didn’t deserve to be there.” But at the time, Alabama was #1 in the country and undefeated. There was no need to play a conference championship game.
What if 12-0 Alabama had to play 9-3 Florida for the Conference Championship? Is that fair?
My mistake, I did gloss over that. Nevertheless, if 9-3 Florida beats undefeated Alabama – “the SEC champion” – in a hypothetical game, they are the better team and they’re from the same conference, and therefore the champion. This, of course, rarely happens.
Alabama deserved to be SEC Champions at the end of the regular season. They were undefeated and beat Ole Miss who Florida lost to. What more proof do you need?
That’s not proof at all. In a head-to-head match-up, Florida beat them by double digits. You honestly think comparing games against common opponents is the best way to determine who’s a better team? Penn State beat Oregon State by 31 in September, a few weeks before USC lost to that same Oregon State team. That USC team went on to have its way with Penn State in a 38-24 decision that wasn’t nearly as close as the score would indicate.
You are looking at it in retrospect.
At the end of the regular season, Alabama was #1 in the country sitting at 12-0. Florida was 11-1. There shouldn’t be any debate to this question. The SECCG should not have been played. The champion was determined by the regular season. Why must a game be played to determine the champion?
So what if Alabama and Florida had played each other during the regular season and Alabama went on to be 12-0 and Florida was 11-1? And what if Florida wins the SECCG? Now you have two teams sitting at 12-1 and each beat the other once. How can you say that Florida is the conference champion?
Again, Conference Championships should be “If Necessary” games. Some years you don’t have a championship game and other years you do…depending on the outcome of the regular season.
Otherwise, just say what Conference Championships really are…….meaningless, money-making games.
So the champion doesn’t have to be the best team in the conference in your book?
Is the conference champion always the best team in the conference?
2003 – 12-0 OU lost to 9-3 Kansas State in the Big 12 Championship game. OU still went on to play in the National Championship.
Again, you are looking at it after watching the season unfold.
Alabama was #1 in the country and the only team in the conference that was undefeated. What more do they need to prove?
If the Pittsburgh Steelers lose to the Cleveland Browns twice in one season but finish 14-2 and Cleveland finishes 13-3, Pittsburgh still wins the division.
It should be the same for college football.
How would we all feel if Ohio State went undefeated and had to play a 9-3 Wisconsin (who the Buckeyes already shalacked in the regular season) for the Big Ten Title and lost?
It is a pointless game in my opinion.
Why does everyone think it has to only be Notre Dame? Missouri, Louisville and Pitt would all make suitable additions both from an athletic and academic standpoint.
The greatest rivalry in sports will not mean as much after ten years of the Big Ten going 2-5 or 1-6 in bowls. Yes, it’s cyclical, but this is a league without much of a punch right now on the national stage.
If the Big Ten wants nationally prominent universities – and it does – then Rutgers and Maryland are much better fits than Louisville and Pitt. I agree that Missouri is a good one as well. Of course, Maryland probably wouldn’t be interested, since they’re in the ACC and all, but Rutgers definitely would be.
Well, I think what the Big Ten really wants is to grow their revenue, which would mean landing larger market teams. Maryland and Rutgers would also do that very well. Notre Dame is the be-all, end-all when looked at from an economic point of view; you get Notre Dame, you get Chicago, the country’s third-largest market.
Between Illinois and Northwestern I think you have Chicago pretty well covered.
Not really. Northwestern is hardly a powerhouse and Illinois is… Illinois. Chicago is Domer Central.
To all of the people who say NU and UI don’t have large Chicago followings and that UND does: you are incorrect. The Tribune bored is made up of UND grads, so everybody does think this. And you are correct about Northwestern; they simply just don’t have many fans. However, most people I know here in Chicago are Illinois fans. I’d say at least 50%. UND maybe 20%. NU 10% and 10% other Big Ten? Anyway, my point is Chicago is clearly Illini country (and believe me as a Hoosier fan who moved here for work … it sucks).
Notre Dame would carry MUCH more than just Chicago, as anyone who is Irish and/or Catholic (at least in the Northeast), and didnt go to a D-1A school is a Notre Dame “fan” (and they all sicken me)
Notre Dame is the best choice because…
a.) They are right in the middle of Big Ten country
b.) Huge nationwide fan following
c.) Enormous revenue
d.) They are INDEPENDENT! Why go around screwing with another conference’s teams and alignment when you can just snag an Independent?
e.) They already play 3-4 Big Ten teams a year
f.) They have several rivalries with Big Ten competition
g.) Lastly….what would be more gratifying (Beisdes beating Michigan) than pummelling the Irish year in and year out?
Growing revenue? Expanding markets? Look no further than Rutgers.
Rutgers is in the nation’s #1 media market. It is a good school. It adds a new and populous state to the B10 footprint. They are investing big bucks in their stadium and football program. They have quality other sports (m/w hoops, esp.)
Make it happen, Delaney et al.
and Maryland too would nab D.C, the country’s seventh-largest market
I do not think Rutgers would be a good idea. They have been getting better, butthey have only really had one good year. I would even say Cincinatti is better than them.
After Schiano leaves is the program going to tank.
I completely agree with Robb. Since when has Rutgers had a consistently solid basketball program? No offense to Northwestern, but the Big Ten does not need another Northwestern (athetically).
When Schiano leaves, the football program will return to its old ways.
I would love to see Pitt. Notre Dame is the ovious choice, but they have already denied us twice. Pitt has a good basketball and football program. Bringing back the Pitt-PSU rival would be good for the Big Ten.
Well, there’s also the whole idea of potential. New Jersey is actually full of great athletes, but they lose a lot of them to neighboring schools (like Penn State). If they were to join the Big Ten, it’s fair to think they’d begin keeping the majority of those kids in state.
I just think the Big Ten should focus on inviting major flagship universities. While Rutgers’ athletic program certainly isn’t the greatest, the university itself fits the Big Ten much better than Pitt, Louisville, Syracuse, or almost any other Big East school. They’re all mid-size, regional institutions who absolutely belong in the Big East.
The Cotton Bowl is moving to a nice new stadium, but it’s still in Dallas in the middle of winter. Sure, the game’s played indoors, but your ability to enjoy the trip is still compromised by the chances of 30-degree temperatures and rain or sleet.
I’m operating under the conventional wisdom that Northern football fans want to travel somewhere nice and warm for bowl games. I guess if that’s not true, then come on down to Dallas. I for one would love to see the Big Ten in the Cotton Bowl, at least occasionally. The 1987 game against Texas A&M was one of my favorite Buckeye games ever.
Good point. Another reason to keep the Capital One Bowl is because of the huge alumni footprint for the Big Ten in Florida. Texas, not so much.
How about a little love from Big Ten Blogger Extraordinaire Adam Rittenberg (referred to the site as the “fine Ohio State blog.”). Good work boys!
http://myespn.go.com/blogs/bigten/0-3-423/Big-Ten-lunch-links.html
That’s awesome. Every time we get a link from the Leader, we get to download a new Stuart Scott ringtone, so we’re stoked about that.
Cooler than the other side of the pillow
Maybe the Big Ten could up the ante a bit on the other conferences by having a 3-game playoff for the championship. The conference is divided into two divisions, and each division has a championship game, followed by the winners facing off in the conference championship game. That would send us well into December and make the B10 seem “progressive”. Not only would it show up the other conferences, but the whole BCS system. Imagine taking more games to decide our championship than it takes to decide the MNC. That’ll show ‘em!
I say the Big Ten just moves conference play into december. Have the non-conference games in August and Septemeber and keep playing right up until bowl season, even if it takes having 4 or 5 bye weeks. Play 2 games and take a week off. Play 3 more games and take another week off. And so on and so on. That way the Big Ten will still have that regular season mindset from August into December instead of sitting around for 60 days getting fat and lazy. The athletes will be in peak physical condition, have plenty of rest to heal any injuries, and be ready to take on the out-of-conference competition.
That way all the other conferences will have the long layoff and the Big Ten will have at the most (if the bowl season starts on December 20th) a 17-19 day layoff.
that would work really well with the change to semesters at ohio state – students wouldn’t have to worry about a final right afte the michigan game.
Is there any regulation against turning the season from a 13-week endeavor to a say 16-17 week one?
Take this season for instance (Moving NM State to the front of the schedule)
9/5 – Navy
9/12 – USC
9/19 – BYE WEEK
9/26 – Toledo
10/3 – New Mexico State
10/10 – Illinois
10/17 – BYE WEEK
10/24 – Indiana
10/31 – Wisconsin
11/7 – Purdue
11/14 – BYE WEEK
11/21 – Minnesota
11/28 – Penn State
12/5 – Iowa
12/12 – BYE WEEK
12/19 – Michigan
—BOWL SEASON—
Possibilities for the 12th team:
Notre Dame – Making too much money being independent to even consider joining. Plus they would probably rather stay in the Big east for hoops.
Pitt – A basketball school. Not leaving the Big East.
Louisville – See: Pitt.
Cincinnati – Also a basketball school in the Big East. Could be swayed to move for the football program which is coming on strong. 2 Problems: 1. What will their football program be once Brian Kelly bolts for a big job? 2. Not even remotely close to a Big 10 football stadium, with no room to expand.
Missouri – A possiblilty, though it would be quite a shock if they actually wanted to leave the powerful big 12 and all of their rivals behind.
Which leaves…
West Virginia – The best fit in terms of quality of big two sports, and interest to make the move. Solid football and basketball… Football school which would love to join a more powerful football conference.
Unless I’ve overlooked a school right underneath our noses, everyone else seems too far away geographically. I agree that academics are going to play a big role in determining who the 12th school is. I know a few schools on this list are “good schools”, but I don’t know enough about WVA or Cincy + Louisville to comment.
I got this from Wikipedia… The Big Ten is the only Division I conference to have all of its member institutions affiliated with the Association of American Universities (AAU), a prestigious collection of 60 research institutions, and leads all conferences in the total amount of research expenditures. I really don’t think the Big Ten will accept a school that’s not an AAU member. The list of non-Big Ten schools in reasonable proximity of Big Ten country includes Iowa State, Maryland, Missouri, Rutgers, Pitt, and Syracuse. WVU isn’t on it.
WVU is a joke academically…..a squirrel with half a brain can get in there…literally all the kids who want to go to a big time sports school, but can only go to community college or division II or III schools in the state apply to WVU just to go to a “real” college