Before we begin, I wanted to quickly address the Pitt-to-the-Big Ten rumors, which had absolutely no truth to them. I know many of you wanted me to weigh in much earlier on this, but when something has no substance behind it, we're not going to fan the flames or even acknowledge it. Sources on both sides have told me and colleagues Brian Bennett and Mark Schlabach that nothing is in the works right now. Pitt very well could become the 12th member of the Big Ten, but when the Big Ten says the process will take 12-18 months, it's a good bet the process will take 12-18 months. Adding a team six weeks after making the public announcement about expansion is beyond out of character for this conference.
Bottom line: Don't believe everything you read on the Internet (unless it's on the Big Ten blog, of course).
Rod D. from Columbus, Ohio, writes: Adam,Do you think the reason OSU has struggled with the in state recruits this year is due to the negative Big 10 perception finally taking its toll. Also do you think Tressel conservative game management is a turn off to potential recruits. I'll be honest when saying this but watching Oregon, Usc, heck even Texas, it just seems more exciting than watching OSU when the offense takes the field. I can understand why recruits are attracted to that style of play.
Adam Rittenberg: No, I agree with colleague Bill Kurelic that 2010 is more the exception than the rule with Ohio State and its local recruiting. Ohio State might not have the "cool" factor like Oregon or USC, but if players want to make it to the NFL, Columbus is a pretty good place to play college ball. I remember talking to several Ohio State players before the Rose Bowl about Oregon and all its Nike gear and uniform combos. They admitted to being drawn to Oregon, but ultimately they chose tradition and a program that would help them get to the next level. Bells and whistles and dynamic schemes play big roles in recruiting, but these guys ultimately want to get to the NFL, and Ohio State will always help them get there.
Jeff from State College, Pa., writes: Adam, Do you know anything behind the validity of the internet rumors circulating that Texas is likely to be headed to the Big Ten?
Adam Rittenberg: I'm hoping you wrote this e-mail with tongue planted firmly in cheek, after the Pitt fiasco. I'll get to this issue later this week on the blog, but the Big Ten absolutely should take a look at Texas. UT makes sense for a lot of reasons, namely its powerhouse athletic department and its academic reputation. But I wonder how much interest Texas has in the Big Ten. Besides the financial incentives, which can never be dismissed in college sports, would Texas benefit much more as a Big Ten member? It's certainly a fun topic to debate. But to answer your question, no team is "likely" heading to the Big Ten at this point. Everyone needs to be more patient with this issue.
Carl from Mequon, Wis., writes: So I am an ideas man, say the Big Ten adds three teams (Mizzou for sure, then any two from Pitt, Cuse, Rutgers, Cincey, or the Ville; we'll say Cuse and Rutgers). After that you divide them up into two leagues: Wisconsin, Mizzou, Iowa, Minnesota, Illinois, Northwestern, and Michigan; MSU, Indiana, OSU, Purdue, Penn St, Cuse, and Rutgers. play 8 conference games (make sure Mich and OSU always play) for football. For hoops play a 19 game conference slate (I know, everyone wants an even number, but if the played every team in their division twice that leaves a one game rotation schedule with the rest). What do you think?
Adam Rittenberg: Carl, I like your ideas, especially the decision to split up Ohio State, Michigan and Penn State. I don't think Big Ten basketball coaches would like this setup, as several already don't like the 18-game conference schedule. These divisions would have some nice balance for football. For basketball, the MSU/Cuse/Ohio State/Purdue division would be much tougher. I'm still not in favor of splitting Ohio State and Michigan into separate divisions because I'd rather only see them play once a year, but to guarantee a cross-divisional game like the SEC does would make some sense.
Marc P. from Chapel Hill, N.C., writes: Hey Adam,If Northwestern manages to set up the Wrigley game with Illinois, what are the chances it will be played on a Thursday night? I vaguely remember hearing about the Big 10 possibly scheduling a few Thursday night games, and I think the Wrigley game would be a prime opportunity for that to happen. There's going to be a lot of media attention anyway, but moving the game to a Thursday could get us some national coverage. It would be a great opportunity to spotlight the Big 10, highlight a program on the rise like Northwestern, and/or improve the image of the floundering Illinois.
Adam Rittenberg: Marc, while a Thursday night game would be pretty electric, there's zero chance of it happening. The Big Ten has been open to a few midweek games, but only at the beginning or the end of the season. This fall, three Big ten teams will open on Thursday, Sept. 2 (Indiana, Minnesota, Ohio State). The Big Ten schedule is already set for 2010, so moving this game would create a bunch of problems. Add in the resistance from the Wrigley Field neighbors about a night football game, and it'll never happen. The Big Ten also prohibits night games after Nov. 1, and the game would have to take place in November. Like you said, the game will generate a ton of buzz no matter when it kicks off.
Rich from Wayne, N.J., writes: Adam - As a lifelong NYC/Northern NJ resident and alum of PSU, I think tapping the NYC-Metro market is huge for B10 expansion and disagree with your assumption that it is a "pro market."Take a long hard look at the thousands upon thousands of Penn State grads from the metro-NYC market, in addition to transplanted alum from other B10 universities to the Northern NJ/NYC area over the years. I have had the pleasure of working with hundreds of B10 alum who are passionate about FBS football. As an NFL Giant season tix holder believe me - the college game is huge in this area, especially since Rutgers has been showing signs of life the past 4 years. Their stadium is now always pretty much packed every home game and they have a waiting list for tix. In addition, PSU always packed Giants Stadium for all Kick-Off Classic games and Cablevison now offers the B10 Network - so don't blow it off that easily. An Ohio State-RU or Michigan-RU matchup would create a ton of media buzz in the press and WFAN for weeks. Paterno has a point - tapping this market gives the B10 a huge no-brainer thumbprint for recruiting, viewership and the #1 market media coverage than adding ANY other program (except for ND). Virtually would knock the Big East (as a football conference anyway) out of business if Rutgers was added. Your take?
Adam Rittenberg: Rich, while I don't question your observations in New York/New Jersey, to label the area anything other than a pro market would be silly. You've got two NFL teams, two MLB teams, two NBA teams and three NHL teams. I know there are a ton of Big Ten alumni in New York, and having Big Ten teams come to the region would attract some attention. I'm just a bit skeptical that Rutgers could truly capture the market in a way the Big Ten would want to go through with expansion. Now if Rutgers AND Syracuse were added, I'd feel a little more confident. From a men's basketball standpoint, Rutgers doesn't bring much to the table, and the one true college sports event in New York City is the Big East tournament at MSG. New York will always be a Big East basketball town, in my opinion. Bottom line: the addition of Rutgers combined with the sizable Big Ten alumni presence in NY/NJ could be enough. But Rutgers will need to make one heck of a sales pitch to Jim Delany.
Bottom line: Don't believe everything you read on the Internet (unless it's on the Big Ten blog, of course).
Rod D. from Columbus, Ohio, writes: Adam,Do you think the reason OSU has struggled with the in state recruits this year is due to the negative Big 10 perception finally taking its toll. Also do you think Tressel conservative game management is a turn off to potential recruits. I'll be honest when saying this but watching Oregon, Usc, heck even Texas, it just seems more exciting than watching OSU when the offense takes the field. I can understand why recruits are attracted to that style of play.
Adam Rittenberg: No, I agree with colleague Bill Kurelic that 2010 is more the exception than the rule with Ohio State and its local recruiting. Ohio State might not have the "cool" factor like Oregon or USC, but if players want to make it to the NFL, Columbus is a pretty good place to play college ball. I remember talking to several Ohio State players before the Rose Bowl about Oregon and all its Nike gear and uniform combos. They admitted to being drawn to Oregon, but ultimately they chose tradition and a program that would help them get to the next level. Bells and whistles and dynamic schemes play big roles in recruiting, but these guys ultimately want to get to the NFL, and Ohio State will always help them get there.
Jeff from State College, Pa., writes: Adam, Do you know anything behind the validity of the internet rumors circulating that Texas is likely to be headed to the Big Ten?
Adam Rittenberg: I'm hoping you wrote this e-mail with tongue planted firmly in cheek, after the Pitt fiasco. I'll get to this issue later this week on the blog, but the Big Ten absolutely should take a look at Texas. UT makes sense for a lot of reasons, namely its powerhouse athletic department and its academic reputation. But I wonder how much interest Texas has in the Big Ten. Besides the financial incentives, which can never be dismissed in college sports, would Texas benefit much more as a Big Ten member? It's certainly a fun topic to debate. But to answer your question, no team is "likely" heading to the Big Ten at this point. Everyone needs to be more patient with this issue.
Carl from Mequon, Wis., writes: So I am an ideas man, say the Big Ten adds three teams (Mizzou for sure, then any two from Pitt, Cuse, Rutgers, Cincey, or the Ville; we'll say Cuse and Rutgers). After that you divide them up into two leagues: Wisconsin, Mizzou, Iowa, Minnesota, Illinois, Northwestern, and Michigan; MSU, Indiana, OSU, Purdue, Penn St, Cuse, and Rutgers. play 8 conference games (make sure Mich and OSU always play) for football. For hoops play a 19 game conference slate (I know, everyone wants an even number, but if the played every team in their division twice that leaves a one game rotation schedule with the rest). What do you think?
Adam Rittenberg: Carl, I like your ideas, especially the decision to split up Ohio State, Michigan and Penn State. I don't think Big Ten basketball coaches would like this setup, as several already don't like the 18-game conference schedule. These divisions would have some nice balance for football. For basketball, the MSU/Cuse/Ohio State/Purdue division would be much tougher. I'm still not in favor of splitting Ohio State and Michigan into separate divisions because I'd rather only see them play once a year, but to guarantee a cross-divisional game like the SEC does would make some sense.
Marc P. from Chapel Hill, N.C., writes: Hey Adam,If Northwestern manages to set up the Wrigley game with Illinois, what are the chances it will be played on a Thursday night? I vaguely remember hearing about the Big 10 possibly scheduling a few Thursday night games, and I think the Wrigley game would be a prime opportunity for that to happen. There's going to be a lot of media attention anyway, but moving the game to a Thursday could get us some national coverage. It would be a great opportunity to spotlight the Big 10, highlight a program on the rise like Northwestern, and/or improve the image of the floundering Illinois.
Adam Rittenberg: Marc, while a Thursday night game would be pretty electric, there's zero chance of it happening. The Big Ten has been open to a few midweek games, but only at the beginning or the end of the season. This fall, three Big ten teams will open on Thursday, Sept. 2 (Indiana, Minnesota, Ohio State). The Big Ten schedule is already set for 2010, so moving this game would create a bunch of problems. Add in the resistance from the Wrigley Field neighbors about a night football game, and it'll never happen. The Big Ten also prohibits night games after Nov. 1, and the game would have to take place in November. Like you said, the game will generate a ton of buzz no matter when it kicks off.
Rich from Wayne, N.J., writes: Adam - As a lifelong NYC/Northern NJ resident and alum of PSU, I think tapping the NYC-Metro market is huge for B10 expansion and disagree with your assumption that it is a "pro market."Take a long hard look at the thousands upon thousands of Penn State grads from the metro-NYC market, in addition to transplanted alum from other B10 universities to the Northern NJ/NYC area over the years. I have had the pleasure of working with hundreds of B10 alum who are passionate about FBS football. As an NFL Giant season tix holder believe me - the college game is huge in this area, especially since Rutgers has been showing signs of life the past 4 years. Their stadium is now always pretty much packed every home game and they have a waiting list for tix. In addition, PSU always packed Giants Stadium for all Kick-Off Classic games and Cablevison now offers the B10 Network - so don't blow it off that easily. An Ohio State-RU or Michigan-RU matchup would create a ton of media buzz in the press and WFAN for weeks. Paterno has a point - tapping this market gives the B10 a huge no-brainer thumbprint for recruiting, viewership and the #1 market media coverage than adding ANY other program (except for ND). Virtually would knock the Big East (as a football conference anyway) out of business if Rutgers was added. Your take?
Adam Rittenberg: Rich, while I don't question your observations in New York/New Jersey, to label the area anything other than a pro market would be silly. You've got two NFL teams, two MLB teams, two NBA teams and three NHL teams. I know there are a ton of Big Ten alumni in New York, and having Big Ten teams come to the region would attract some attention. I'm just a bit skeptical that Rutgers could truly capture the market in a way the Big Ten would want to go through with expansion. Now if Rutgers AND Syracuse were added, I'd feel a little more confident. From a men's basketball standpoint, Rutgers doesn't bring much to the table, and the one true college sports event in New York City is the Big East tournament at MSG. New York will always be a Big East basketball town, in my opinion. Bottom line: the addition of Rutgers combined with the sizable Big Ten alumni presence in NY/NJ could be enough. But Rutgers will need to make one heck of a sales pitch to Jim Delany.
Adam Rittenberg | email
College Football- ESPN.com Big Ten blogger
- Joined ESPN.com in 2008
- Wrote for Arlington Heights (Ill.) Daily Herald
ABOUT THIS BLOG
Adam Rittenberg
Rittenberg joined ESPN.com in 2008 after four years at the Arlington Heights (Ill.) Daily Herald, where he covered sports at Notre Dame, Northwestern, DePaul and several other colleges. He lives in Chicago.
Brian Bennett
Bennett joined ESPN.com in August 2008 after nine years at The Courier-Journal in Louisville, Ky., where he covered college sports and the University of Louisville beat. He lives in Louisville.
BIG TEN TEAM COVERAGE
RECRUITING NATION
Michigan: WolverineNation
Follow everything Michigan at WolverineNation: Michigan Wolverines football, basketball, news, recruiting and more.
You must be signed in to post a comment