ESPN College Football

Big Ten bloggers Adam Rittenberg and Brian Bennett will occasionally give their takes on a burning question facing the league. We'll both have strong opinions, but not necessarily the same view. We'll let you decide which blogger is right.

Expansion winds are blowing again with Texas A&M's apparently imminent departure to the SEC potentially setting off a chain reaction. So today's Take Two topic is this: What should the Big Ten's next move be as the conference chess pieces are again put into play?

Take 1: Adam Rittenberg


The Big Ten shouldn't take its eye off the board, but the league can't just start stacking up pawns, either. The league doesn't want to expand again and would only do so reluctantly as others (SEC, Pac-12) explore the superconference model. Let's remember that the Big Ten's last two additions, Nebraska and Penn State, are home runs from a branding standpoint. Let's also remember, and this part is really important, that the Big Ten isn't going to compromise its academic reputation just to bring in elite athletic programs. While some Pac-12 presidents and chancellors feel the same way, it's more of a deal breaker in the Big Ten than it appears to be in the Pac-12. That's why Oklahoma probably isn't a realistic option. Oklahoma State and Texas Tech certainly are not. If the Big Ten is forced to expand, it would look for schools that fit academically, culturally and athletically, and preferably are located in or near major markets. While there aren't many home runs out there, schools like Maryland and Rutgers fit the description. I still believe the only endgame where the Big Ten can expand and truly add major value is by bringing in Notre Dame. The landscape might change so much that Notre Dame has to join a conference, and if that's the case, the Big Ten should pounce.

Take 2: Brian Bennett

I agree that Notre Dame is the best addition, and the rise of superconferences may be the one thing that finally convinces the Irish to let go of their cherished independence. The Big Ten should be putting the full-court press on South Bend. While the Big Ten doesn't want to expand and I personally don't like the idea of mega-conferences, the league also doesn't want to be left picking at scraps after the SEC and Pac-24 gets first dibs. That's why the conference ought to be proactive here and go after some big fish. What's wrong with Oklahoma? The school might not exactly be Harvard, but it's not a community college, either. Besides, Big Ten presidents apparently had no problem inviting Nebraska before voting to kick it out of the AAU. Oklahoma could resume its rivalry with the Cornhuskers in the Big Ten while both thumb their noses at Texas. Missouri also makes perfect sense geographically and culturally despite whatever burnt bridges exist from the last expansion go-round. This is business, not personal. If I'm the Big Ten, I go all out right now for Notre Dame, Oklahoma, Missouri and one team from the East, whether it's Maryland, Rutgers, Syracuse, Pitt or whoever. Tell me that 16-team superconference wouldn't be impressive.

Expansion rumors are flying again, with Texas A&M's flirtation with the SEC setting off speculation of another conference shuffle. But the Big Ten says it's not interested in taking that ride.

The league put out a statement Friday afternoon acknowledging that its council of presidents and chancellors (the COP/C) recently met to talk about expansion and other issues. But, the statement read:

"[T]he COP/C would like to reiterate that it will not be actively engaged in conference expansion at this time, or at any time in the foreseeable future, barring a significant shift in the current intercollegiate athletic landscape.

"The COP/C is aware that speculation about the possibility of expansion by the Big Ten Conference continues despite a statement from COP/C Chair and Indiana University President Michael McRobbie on December 5, 2010, indicating that the COP/C believed the expansion process had reached its natural conclusion, that it was pleased with the addition of Nebraska, and that it looked forward to working with its new colleagues in the years ahead.

"The conference has spent the past 14 months actively engaged in incorporating Nebraska, academically and athletically, into the fabric of the conference.

"'We're about as comfortable as we can be with where we are,' said Big Ten Commissioner James E. Delany. 'We've said that we will continue to monitor the landscape, but we have closed down active expansion and have no plans to seek new members.'"

This isn't all that surprising. The Big Ten added Nebraska and is comfortable with 12 teams; there's not a huge appetite for more expansion right now (nor are there overwhelmingly great candidates for such). As I wrote earlier this week, the Cornhuskers are a terrific fit, and the Big Ten should keep that line of thinking when it comes to expansion: better, not necessarily bigger.

But the statement includes the caveat "barring a significant shift" in the landscape. I think the SEC going to 16 teams and the Pac-12 following suit, with the breakdown of the Big 12, would constitute a significant shift. Fact is, the Big Ten has to be ready to pounce if the superconferences come to fruition or it will risk being left with the scraps if it ever does want to expand.

But for right now, the Big Ten is hoping that things don't change that much in college football, and that it can stay at 12 for the time being. We'll see how realistic a goal that is.

So let's get this straight: Texas A&M had the moving vans revved up and ready to head to the SEC, only the SEC said why don't we cool things down a bit while schools like Missouri, Clemson and Florida State are waiting to see what happens.

All of which brings home one point when it comes to the league we cover in these parts. The Big Ten sure got its expansion right, didn't it?

Jim Delany and the conference leaders scooped up Nebraska last year when it looked like the Big 12 was fracturing and the Pac-16 thing was happening. Maybe the Big Ten doesn't make the move that quickly if not for those external circumstances, but in this case, swiftness and correctness went hand in hand.

The Cornhuskers have yet to play a game in their new league, but you can't find anyone who doesn't think this is a terrific fit. Nebraska not only matches geographically in the Big Ten, adding a natural rival with Iowa, but also philosophically in its style of play and fervent fan base. Most importantly, Nebraska is a marquee program and a national power. Even if the Huskers haven't been to a BCS game since the 2002 Rose Bowl disaster, they appear back on the rise under Bo Pelini.

Now, compare that with other conferences. The Pac-12's bold play for Texas, Oklahoma and others last year drew praise for commissioner Larry Scott. But the league ended up with Colorado and Utah, neither of which possess Nebraska's stature.

Will Texas A&M really do much for the SEC? The Aggies haven't won a bowl game since 2001 and haven't claimed a conference championship since 1998. Not much separates them from a program like Northwestern except for tradition.

Should A&M still pull off an SEC marriage, there could be a wild scramble among leagues to grab the remains of the Big 12 or raid the ACC and Big East. But Delany says the Big Ten is comfortable for now with its 12-team alignment. Adding teams like Missouri or Kansas doesn't do much for the league except split the revenue pie into more slices, and it could possibly dilute the product. Unless the Big Ten could grab some truly big fish like Texas, Oklahoma or Notre Dame, expanding may not be worth the trouble. Nebraska was the only real big fish to jump into a new pond last summer.

Bigger isn't always better. But the Big Ten sure got its expansion push right last time.

The Big Ten rocked the college sports world on Dec. 15, 2009, when it announced it would explore the possibility of expansion.

The league's announcement set off a series of events that included the Big Ten approving Nebraska as a new member on June 11. Big Ten expansion became the No. 1 topic on this blog for months and one of the hottest items in all of sports.

There was a much different response earlier this month when the Big Ten ended its expansion study and announced it would no longer be actively involved in seeking new members. Barely anyone seemed to notice or care about the end of the expansion push, although the timing of the announcement -- right before the BCS selections and bowl pairings -- certainly contributed to the silence.

I recently had a chance to catch up with Big Ten commissioner Jim Delany to discuss the expansion process.

As you can imagine, Delany had a lot to say. I've divided his comments into two posts.

Here's Part I.

"It probably raised the level of interest on expansion beyond what we thought or predicted. There was a lot of coverage, there was a lot of speculation, some of it was accurate. It was more high-profile than we thought it would be when we made the announcement, but that's the world we live in. There was a general agreement that it was useful to put that time in. There was also a belief that the transparency of the effort was helpful."

"There was cumulatively a lot more movement [nationally] than what we had done, and most of it either was unrelated to what we had done or preceded what we had done. Colorado and then all the changes out on the WAC and Mountain West couldn't be reasonably related to what we were doing. Moreover, the Big East movement could have been done with or without our involvement. That was just their move."

"We understand that you go beyond 12 [members], you become a different kind of organization. You're together because you want to play each other more, not less. That's why we're looking at the nine [conference] games [for football], but we've got to also keep in mind the budgetary impact of not providing seven home games. ... We were happy with 11, but the model is 12 out there. There's some real value in 12 because of the [football] championship game. But we were I think exceptionally conservative and wouldn't have moved on it unless there was very broad support, which there was."

"Looking at all of these options and models, it's always seen in the context of, 'How much undermining are you doing of the intangibles that you've achieved through a variety of collaborations?' There's no doubt about that. In some ways, maintaining the name [of the league] is a way of saying that. The Big Ten may be 12 institutions, but it represents a certain set of agreed-upon values and shared practices. People may undermine that, but we think it's integral to who we are. As we studied other expansions, we thought some of them maybe didn't stand the test of time in that the games that were created didn't necessarily speak to of the communities in a way that was powerful."

"We have compactness, we have contiguity geographically, we have many cities and states that share geographic and cultural commonality. They're all AAU, many of the them are land grants, they all have major research elements, they all have significant alumni bases. They talk the same language. We have what we like. There are other conferences that might be stronger in other ways -- maybe they win more games, maybe they take into consideration more geography, maybe their purposes are narrower. When I see some of the movements out west, not necessarily the Pac-10, but they seem to be driven by access to the BCS. In other words, whatever relationships they have are outweighed by the possibility of increased access to an automatic qualifier. They're transparent about what we're trying to do, and I think we're transparent about what we're trying to do. Everybody's a little different."

"I view this in many ways how I view [the Penn State expansion]. While it was different at the time, I think it's a pretty conservative move. It wasn't radical. Any time you make change, there's going to be some heartache or lack of comfort, but in the big sense, we're able to operate in a pretty high-profile area and pull off an outcome that was great for us."

The Big Ten expansion buzz has died down significantly since Nebraska came aboard, but a potentially key development took place during the weekend. Debbie Yow, the longtime athletic director at Maryland, left for the same post at N.C. State.

Maryland has long been mentioned as a fringe candidate for Big Ten expansion, and the buzz about the Terrapins increased in the days just before and just after the league added Nebraska. It's very possible that the Big Ten won't expand any further, as sources tell the Chicago Tribune's Teddy Greenstein, but the league is only six months into an expansion study that could last until June 2011. The Big Ten is back on its own timetable now, and it could "act again," as commissioner Jim Delany said, late this fall or early this winter.

If you've read anything about Maryland and the Big Ten, you've probably seen quotes like this from Yow:

"I haven't heard anything from the Big Ten, and, to the best of my knowledge, Dr. [C.D. 'Dan'] Mote [the university president] has not either. The Big Ten is a terrific conference, but Maryland is a charter member in 1953 of the ACC and we are happy in the ACC. These are deep roots."

More from Yow:

"Why would we go anywhere? For money? I think we have less callous, bottom-line motivations than that."

Yow seemed pretty clear about her ACC allegiance, but she's no longer at Maryland. The school also soon will have a new president, who Mote said likely will select the next athletic director.

Hmmm, new president, new athletic director ... new outlook toward the Big Ten?

I put the question to colleague Heather Dinich, who knows way more about Maryland athletics than any of us. Heather has covered Maryland for both ESPN.com and The Baltimore Sun. She also knows the Big Ten well, as an Indiana alum who covered Penn State.

Here's what she had to say about how Yow's departure affects Maryland and the Big Ten:

Yow's departure opens the door for anything and everything at Maryland, not only because she is leaving, but because the university will also be bringing in a new president soon. Yow had said repeatedly that she had had no contact with the Big Ten, and that there was no interest in leaving the ACC. A new administration might feel differently. The question is whether or not Maryland would actually be a good fit for the Big Ten. Competitively? I say no. (And I'm sticking to college football when I say that.) For example, look at Maryland's record against Penn State: 1-35-1. It's no wonder they haven't played since 1993. Why pick the Nits as an example? Well, because it's the only Big Ten school Maryland has played with any regularity. Also because Penn State recruits the state of Maryland, and has made a habit out of beating the Terps for their top in-state talent, though Maryland has picked up its recruiting efforts recently under offensive coordinator James Franklin.

Overall, Maryland is 4-44-1 against the Big Ten, but hasn't played anyone other than Michigan State more than five times and hasn't faced Illinois, Ohio State, Wisconsin, Iowa or Northwestern. Do Maryland fans really want to, though? A 2-10 record in the ACC won't translate well into a conference that just got bigger and better with the addition of Nebraska.

Man, 4-44-1. I didn't realize Maryland's Big Ten record was that brutal, although Penn State is the big reason why.

I look at Maryland a lot like Rutgers: a program with limited tradition in football that has the potential to help the Big Ten in several ways. Maryland gives the Big Ten an increased presence in a major metropolitan area, which should help grow the Big Ten Network. And like Rutgers, Maryland is located in a good area for high school recruiting, as teams like Penn State and Illinois already have found out. If the Big Ten chooses to expand again, it must make recruiting a bigger factor.

Does Maryland move the needle in football? Nope. But it gives the Big Ten a reason to be in the Washington D.C./Baltimore/Northern Virginia area.

In the end, that might be enough.

The wait is over.

Many of you -- hundreds? thousands? -- have asked me to review your proposals for Big Ten divisions and to offer my own. It's truly amazing how much interest this part of expansion garners. Even before Dec. 15, I received hundreds of e-mails not only proposing new members to the Big Ten, but outlining how the divisions would set up. It must be the fantasy sports aspect in all of this.

OK, let's get started.

Note: This is all based on the Big Ten remaining a 12-team league with Nebraska as the only new addition. These divisions apply to football only, so don't start crying about basketball or other sports. There's no need for divisions when you have conference tournaments.

OBJECTIVES

There's no perfect model to divisions, and someone is going to be upset no matter what. But it's important to identify some criteria.

• Competitive balance. I can't stress this enough, but as commissioner Jim Delany said Friday in Lincoln, competitive balance is the top priority in determining divisions. There are lessons to be learned from the Big 12, which shifted its power to the South division and made the league championship game weaker. The Big Ten wants its title game to mean something. Recent history certainly matters when evaluating programs, but so does long-term history.
• Rivalries (old and new). The Big Ten is nothing without its rivalries, but not every rivalry will be saved unless the league goes to an 11-game round robin schedule (not happenin'). It's also important to be forward thinking and project new rivalries that not only appeal to the two fan bases, but to casual fans and to national audiences.
• National appeal. You've seen me write a lot about teams that "move the needle." Certain teams have national appeal, and certain teams don't. That's just the way it is. A league needs to address this in divisions and ensure it has as many opportunities as possible to showcase its product nationally. You want to get the ABC Saturday night game as often as possible. Fans probably don't place as much weight on this element, but the Big Ten certainly does, and I'm following suit.

(Read full post)

Unless the Big Ten chooses to "act again" in expansion, the big question between now and September 2011 relates to division alignment in the new 12-team league.

Wednesday, I asked Penn State fans to weigh in on division alignment.

To review, here were the three questions:

• How would you feel about Penn State being in a division with Iowa, Nebraska and Wisconsin, but not Ohio State or Michigan?
• How would you feel if Penn State had a protected crossover rivalry with Ohio State, preserving an excellent annual series?
• How would the very real prospect of nine conference games impact your view of divisions? In this format, teams would play all but two conference foes every year, just like the current setup.

Let's get some answers ...

Lance from Bedford, Pa., writes: I see some irony in you asking us the tough questions being that we are the Big Ten's stepchild. I do not feel that PSU has established a strong rivalry in the conference even after 17 seasons. Looking at the short history, it has been a win/loss see-saw with almost every team. We have established some dominance over Wisconsin and Michigan recently while being owned by Iowa. Ohio State may be the closest thing to a rivalry that we have and losing the nation's highest recruited quarterback to them a couple of years ago only stoked the fire. Nobody in the B10 has been as competitive recently with Ohio State as Penn State. Therefore, with Michigan struggling and OSU dominating Wiscy and Iowa, I don't see how you keep PSU and OSU in the same division. Agreed?

My take: Without giving too much away about my division proposal (coming Friday morning), I agree with your point about Penn State and Ohio State. Penn State is the only Big Ten team to have beaten Ohio State two times during the Buckeyes' dominant run. Iowa and Wisconsin fans should be proud of their teams, but neither squad has beaten Ohio State since 2004. That's a long drought. Penn State, meanwhile, has beaten Ohio State twice in the last five years. The Penn State-Michigan rivalry has some passion, but Michigan has dominated until the last two years. I think there's a ton of potential for a Penn State-Nebraska rivalry.

---

Jason from Tampa writes: Re: Question for PSU FansIf we could protect the annual game with OSU; I feel being in the same division with Nebraska, Iowa and Wisconsin would be great. Especially if we could set up the Nebraska game as our annual end of year rivalry (replacing MSU). This leaves us where we are now (in regards to Michigan rotating off every couple of years) and upgrades our overall schedule. As for 9 conference games...I am on the fence - if we don't update our OOC schedule...then it's fine. However, I still would like to play one or two BCS schools OOC and fill in with a cupcake or two.

My take: Whether it's Penn State-Nebraska, Wisconsin-Nebraska or Iowa-Nebraska, that game would be electric in late November. Going to nine conference games could really hurt nonconference scheduling for teams like Penn State, which drew criticism for its soft slate in 2009. Teams with massive stadiums can't afford to have only six home games in any given year, so the seasons where they have five Big Ten road games would need to be countered with three nonconference home games.

---

Scott from Philadelphia: 1. As much as I hate to admit it, Penn State is the awkward third wheel in the OSU-UM-PSU hate triangle. There have been some great games recently and Penn State certainly has a strong dislike for OSU and Michigan, the history is just not there. We have as much a history with Nebraska as Michigan, so I'd be ok with not being in the same division as OSU and Mich. as long as we had Nebraska (if you throw Iowa and Wisc. in there, that could be quite a strong division).2. Absolutely. The rivalry has been very good recently and if there was the option to preserve it, I say go for it. If I had to pick 1 big ten team to maintain a permanent rivalry with it would be OSU.3. So basically, it'd be like the big ten now with 2 teams every year that we don't play except they'd always be 2 teams in the other division? I like that. While it does take away 1 potential out of conference game, its not like Penn State is scheduling a lot of great OOC games. Maybe it will force them to only play 1 cupcake school each year.

My take: I agree Nebraska could be substituted nicely for Michigan, and the Ohio State-Penn State rivalry is worth preserving for a number of reasons. Would there be a need for protected rivalries with a nine-game conference schedule? Certainly not as much as there would be with an eight-game league slate.

---

Cameron from Toronto writes: To answer your first questions, I don't at all like the idea of Penn St. not being in the same division as Michigan and Ohio St., those are our two biggest rivalry games and to lose even one a season due to crossover schedules, in my eyes, is unacceptable. I realize there is already a chance due to the way the schedules are set now, but to make those chances even greater is again unacceptable. If you could guarantee a crossover game with OSU each season, the above scenario would be easier to swallow. I aligned the teams based on geography and I really like what I see: In the East - PSU, Michigan, OSU, MSU, Indiana, and Purdue. In the West - Illinois, Wisconsin, Iowa, Minnesota, Nebraska, and Northwestern. Wisconsin, Iowa, and Nebraska will be able to balance out the power football wise as they are perennially good teams (sometimes very underrated).

Adam Rittenberg: It sounds like the Ohio State rivalry means more to Penn State fans than any other in the Big Ten. Playing Michigan a little less would sting a bit, but probably not after seeing the rivalries with Nebraska, Iowa and perhaps Wisconsin grow. Now you make a good point about Wisconsin, Iowa and Nebraska balancing out things in the West. But could that bloc beat Ohio State on a somewhat regular basis?

Thanks to all the Penn State fans for their submissions.

Let it be known that I'll have no objections if the Big Ten ends its expansion study tomorrow.

The Big Ten already improved itself with the addition of Nebraska, and a 12-team structure provides the chance to have a championship game while maintaining the intimacy of a league built on long-standing rivalries. If commissioner Jim Delany and the Big Ten presidents and chancellors decide 12 is enough, so be it. I'll go back to blogging about actual football, and we'll all survive.

But the Big Ten says it will continue to examine expansion for the next year or so, and Delany could "act and act again," he said earlier this month.

So here's some advice to the league: If Phase 2 of expansion becomes a reality, make recruiting a top priority.

Nebraska adds a lot to the Big Ten: great football tradition, great fans, a program that matters nationally. But what Nebraska doesn't bring is a new area rife with recruits. According to an in-depth study by SI.com, the state of Nebraska produced only 43 BCS-conference players between 2004-08.

The Big Ten's recent recruiting challenges have been well documented, and Delany has listed the shifting population to the south as a driving force for the expansion push. The Big Ten wants alums, but more importantly, it wants access to recruits.

Texas obviously would have been a great addition for recruiting. Every Big Ten team spends some time in the Lone Star State looking for prospects. But the Longhorns aren't leaving the Big 12.

So where should the Big Ten look to improve its recruiting? Here are two possibilities:

Rutgers: Besides its location near the nation's top media market -- a potential huge boost for the Big Ten Network -- Rutgers would help the Big Ten get a better foothold in New Jersey, a very good state for high school prospects. Plenty of Big Ten programs already recruit in New Jersey, including Penn State and Wisconsin (primarily during Barry Alvarez's tenure). Having a permanent presence in the Garden State would boost Big Ten recruiting efforts there.

Maryland: The Washington D.C. and Baltimore markets appeal to the Big Ten Network, but the real benefit here could come in recruiting. Penn State has plucked top prospects from Maryland for many years, and Illinois built its recruiting success in 2006 and 2007 on a pipeline to Washington D.C. that landed players like Arrelious Benn and Vontae Davis. Northern Virginia is right there as well and produces top players like Penn State's Evan Royster. By adding the University of Maryland, the Big Ten would have a greater chance to reel in recruits from the state and the Beltway.

Again, the Big Ten doesn't need to add any more teams. But if there's a move to be made, it must be strategic and keep recruiting very much in mind.

Now that the expansion rumblings have subsided for the time being, many pundits are determining winners and losers from a wild few weeks in college sports.

Although I don't see this issue in the same way I see a game or a season -- you need more time to determine success or failure -- I've been keeping track of the expansion scorecards out there.

Here are a few viewpoints of where the Big Ten and its new member, Nebraska, stack up:

Colleague Bruce Feldman: Calls Nebraska the No. 3 winner in expansion ... "The Big 12 never felt right for the Cornhuskers. Sure, NU had won big at times in the league, but clearly this had been the Longhorns' league in terms of clout, recently. UT was the biggest shot-caller. Husker brass reportedly always resented that. Now, the tradition-rich Husker program is moving to a more stabile league with much better academics across the board and is a better fit geographically. NU does have 24 Texans on its roster, which is quite a lot, but this should open up the Big Ten recruiting turf more to Nebraska, which only has seven players from those states."

SI.com's Stewart Mandel: "The Big Ten will continue to hold out for its ever-elusive dream girl, Notre Dame, but in the meantime, it quite seamlessly added one of the most prestigious programs in the sport to an already stable league. Nebraska, a big winner itself, got out from under the rule of the Texas-Texas A&M-Oklahoma triumvirate while joining a new set of 11 colleagues with which it already shares much in common academically and geographically."

The Indianapolis Star: "While the Pac-10 added Colorado and its subpar football program, the Big Ten added one of the nation's elite in Nebraska. That's a win for the league, which can now stage a football championship game and earn more money. Jim Delany usually wins and he's not done chalking up victories. ... The Huskers are winners because they get away from evil Texas and its power hungry ego. Sad to lose the rivalry with Oklahoma but that's a small price to exit an uneven partnership in the Big 12 where the rich just made more money than every other school. Nebraska has found a home for a long time in the Big Ten."

The Sporting Blog's Brian Cook: Calls Nebraska a winner in expansion ... "They've extracted themselves from an abusive relationship and now find themselves in a football conference approximately the equal of the one they left minus the revenue imbalance and plus many millions of dollars. Also, Big Ten membership should gradually improve Nebraska's academic reputation." ... Puts Big Ten in category of Folks Not Quite Sure How They Feel ... "Nebraska is a fine addition for football and various other non-revenue sports but is terrible at basketball and hardly expands the reach of the Big Ten Network, which will now be on TV in the nation's 38th most populous state and possibly the Dakotas. That's not nothing, but it's not much, either. The Big Ten's divisions figure to be awkwardly non-geographic and possibly unbalanced, and meanwhile they've filled that precious 12th slot with a team that is Not Notre Dame."

The New York Post's Lenn Robbins: Calls Big Ten a winner ... "You get the feeling if Jim Delany took up chess, he'd be a grandmaster in about a week. Created a near panic when he uttered the word, "expansion.'' The Big Ten added just one team but what a team -- Nebraska." ... Also calls Nebraska a winner ... "Out of the Texas-dominated Big 12, where its rivalry with Oklahoma was not respected, and into the Big Ten. Already the fourth-most profitable program in college football (Texas, Notre Dame, Penn State), Big Red to operate in the Big Black."

The Austin American-Statesman's Cedric Golden: Calls Big Ten a loser ... "Nebraska coming in was a big deal for commissioner Jim Delany, who had to believe two super conferences -- his own Big Ten and the Pac-10 -- could run the Big 12 out of business and cripple the Big East in football. Now, only landing Notre Dame can make this thing a success for the Big Ten." ... Calls Nebraska AD Tom Osborne a winner ... "The Nebraska athletic director wasn't happy with his school's standing in the Big 12, so he left. The Huskers are in a better situation now."

From looking at these and other assessments, Nebraska earns a big "W" and the Big Ten earns a little "w."

It's hard for a lot of folks both regionally and nationally to view this as a major success for the Big Ten because neither Texas nor Notre Dame have been added to the league. But for Nebraska, even though the Big 12 is staying together, the move is being seen as an excellent one.

That sigh of relief you hear echoes from Columbia to Waco and from Ames to Lawrence.

The Big 12 has been saved, and college sports Armageddon has been averted. At least for now.

Meanwhile, it's quiet in Park Ridge, Ill, site of Big Ten headquarters. The Big Ten made its move Friday -- much earlier than it wanted to, mind you -- and added Nebraska as its 12th member. In doing so, the league became unquestionably stronger with a fourth traditional powerhouse program now occupying its western edge.

The only question that remains: how long will Jim Delany sit still?

The Big Ten could be finished with expansion and satisfied with a 12-team league. The need to become a 16-team superconference certainly seems less urgent than it did 30 hours ago. The Big Ten remains rich, and it should get better on the field with Nebraska. If this round of expansion roulette is over, the Big Ten secured the best available prize.

Then again, the Big Ten certainly might act again in expansion. Keep in mind that we're only one-third of the way through the 12- to 18-month period Delany and the Big Ten brass laid out in December to study expansion. The Big Ten likely wouldn't have added any teams until the fall or winter if the Pac-10 didn't make an aggressive push for Big 12 teams. Now that Delany and co. are back on their own timetable, they could decide to make another move on their own terms.

"We’re back to the slower tempo sort of game," Delany said Friday.

But the game is far from over.

The Big Ten still has a television network to grow and a population shift to address. Those were the two driving forces for the expansion study, Delany told us in May.

Nebraska doesn't help a lot in either of those areas.

The Big Ten will continue to explore its options, and most likely look to the East. I've heard Rutgers, Maryland and even Boston College mentioned by Big Ten sources in recent days. And the Big Ten's Holy Grail, Notre Dame, is still out there, clinging to its independence. Unless Notre Dame's BCS bowl access changes, I don't see the Irish joining a league.

Could the Big Ten still raid the Big East? Possible, but unlikely. The Big Ten's next move likely will be driven by the Big Ten Network, meaning a coveted media market must be added.

Delany has talked extensively about limiting damage on the back end of expansion, and there seems to be a genuine feeling among college sports' power brokers not to be labeled the one who ruined everything.

Maybe Delany leaves the Big East alone. Maybe he doesn't. But to assume one of the most powerful and ambitious figures in college athletics is finished would be foolish. Delany devotes more than half of his time to the expansion issue, and he absolutely could have a major move left in him.

For now, the Big Ten waits, and so will we.

Since Nebraska's official arrival with the Big Ten on Friday, several folks have asked about what power the Huskers now have or will have in the league.

This is relevant because as the Big Ten continues to study expansion and the potential of adding more members, there could be another vote from the league's Council of Presidents/Chancellors.

Joe from Downers Grove, Ill., writes: Hi Adam, one detail I was wondering about the vote of the Council of Presidents/Chancellors to accept new members - does the addition of Nebraska change the number of "yes" votes needed to gain admission to the Big Ten? Is it a strict number or phrased as "minimum 70% of the schools" or something similar?

I've clarified a few things regarding Nebraska from folks in the Big Ten office:

• Nebraska doesn't become a full voting member of the Big Ten until July, 1, 2011, at which time chancellor Harvey Perlman will have a seat on the Big Ten's Council of Presidents/Chancellors.
  
• Nebraska's addition doesn't change the way teams are admitted to the Big Ten -- applicants still need at least 70 percent approval from the COP/C -- but it will change the number of yes votes required. After July 1, 2011, applicants will need at least 9 of 12 votes (75 percent) to be admitted.
• If the Big Ten votes on an applicant before July 1, 2011, Nebraska won't be part of the process and the previous format applies. The applicant would need eight of 11 votes to be admitted.
  

Hope this helps.

Rivalries are undoubtedly among the primary concerns for fans and some media members when assessing realignment in college football.

Rivalries define the sport, and they're certainly at risk depending upon what happens. Nebraska and Colorado, longtime Big 8/Big 12 rivals, both have left for other conferences, leaving their annual series in doubt. There are also nonconference rivalries like Iowa-Iowa State that could be altered or possibly ended if the dominoes don't fall the right way.

This post focuses solely on current Big Ten rivalries (excluding Nebraska). They mean everything in this league, and they will be impacted, one way or another, by the league expanding to at least 12 teams.

“We’re going into this with the idea that rivalries really matter," Big Ten commissioner Jim Delany said Friday. "But not all rivalries are equal.”

We've got a ton of time to look at divisions, championship game possibilities and the like, but here's my take on the rivalries that must be preserved, should be preserved and could be sacrificed for the good of the league.

If you need a refresher, here's the Big Ten's list of protected rivalries and my thoughts on the good and the eh.

OK, let's get going ...

HANDS OFF!

• Michigan-Ohio State
• Michigan-Michigan State
• Minnesota-Wisconsin
• Indiana-Purdue
• Minnesota-Iowa
• Wisconsin-Iowa

HANDLE WITH CARE

• Ohio State-Penn State
• Illinois-Ohio State
• Michigan-Minnesota
• Iowa-Penn State

EXPENDABLE

• Michigan State-Penn State
• Illinois-Northwestern
• Indiana-Illinois (should be able to save)
• Penn State-Michigan
• Minnesota-Penn State
• Wisconsin-Michigan
• Purdue-Illinois (did you know this is a trophy game?)
• Northwestern-Iowa (should be able to save)
• Purdue-Northwestern
• Michigan State-Indiana

Nebraska's entrance into the league certainly changes the rivalry landscape. Is it worth sacrificing a current Big Ten rivalry or two to build some potentially great ones between Nebraska and teams in its new league?

There are some great possibilities out there: Nebraska-Iowa, Nebraska-Wisconsin, Nebraska-Minnesota, Nebraska-Penn State. Wisconsin is already pushing for a late-season rivalry game with the Huskers.

But that's a conversation for another day.

What are your thoughts on which rivalries are worth saving?

There are literally hundreds of these, but I've found some of the best for you. Enjoy.

And go USA!

• As a bad marriage with the Big 12 ended, Nebraska found a perfect match with the Big Ten, colleague Ivan Maisel writes.
• CBSsports.com's Dennis Dodd covers all the bases in this report from Lincoln.
• What's next for the Big Ten? The Chicago Tribune's Teddy Greenstein is talking up Maryland, while his colleague Brian Hamilton writes that Notre Dame still isn't interested ... yet.
• Here's the right way to sort out division alignments in the Big Ten (to heck with geography, it's all about performance, baby!), from The Cleveland Plain Dealer's Doug Lesmerises.
• Once unpopular Nebraska chancellor Harvey Perlman has redeemed himself in a major way, Steven M. Sipple writes in the (Lincoln) Journal Star.
• Reaction from around the Big Ten and the country to Nebraska's move.
• Nebraska is a nice start, but the Big Ten has more work to do in expansion, annarbor.com's Dave Birkett writes. The next step for the league could take time, Mark Snyder writes in the Detroit Free Press.
• The Sporting News' Matt Hayes on what college football might look like, including a 16-team Big Ten, when all the expansion dominoes have fallen.
• Friday wasn't a good day for Missouri, colleague David Ubben writes. Missouri can't buy a break in the expansion game, Bernie Miklasz writes in the St. Louis Post-Dispatch.
• Iowa State's athletic director thinks the Big Ten Network changed college sports.

I just got off of a teleconference with Big Ten commissioner Jim Delany, Michigan State president Lou Anna Simon, Nebraska chancellor Harvey Perlman and Nebraska athletic director Tom Osborne about Nebraska becoming the 12th member of the Big Ten.

There are so many subtopics to discuss in the coming months, but here's a bit more about what we know now:

Further Big Ten expansion: It definitely could happen. Delany and Simon both said the league remains within its 12- to 18-month time frame to study expansion and could act again depending on the climate. The Big Ten only acted now because of circumstances with the Big 12 and Nebraska. Delany admitted the league might not have been ready to act three months ago. The Big Ten now will return to "the slower tempo sort of game" with expansion, but Delany said the league is prepared to act quickly again. "We have two-thirds of study period left to go and we’re real anxious to work with Jim and others around the next step," Simon said. Added Delany: "If we can be as successful with a 13th or 14th member as we were with Nebraska, that would be great."

Championship game: Delany has never been rah-rah about them, but he expects the Big Ten to begin playing a championship game in football in 2011. Venues and locations haven't been discussed, but Big Ten associate commissioner for television administration Mark Rudner and others will begin examining the possibilities. Feedback from athletic directors and coaches will be gathered before any decisions are made. "It’s important to get it right, and there’s no silver bullet," Delany said. "There will be different views on it."

Division alignment: The Big Ten also must figure out divisions in the coming months. Delany listed three main criteria for sorting them out: competitive fairness, maintenance of rivalries and geography. He stressed that competitive fairness is the No. 1 priority, which I believe to be the correct approach. Geography shouldn't determine divisions. You don't want another Big 12 South scenario.

Scheduling: Osborne hinted that the number of conference games could increase in the new Big Ten. He expects at least three nonconference games and, like many Big Ten athletic directors, wants to keep as many of those at home as possible. The Big Ten's challenge will be figuring things out for Nebraska's arrival in September 2011. "Mark Rudner and Mike McComiskey have done a lot of models," Delany said. "The issue for us it the short turnaround."

Rivalries: Delany has often talked about the intimacy of a league and how vital rivalries are to its fabric. "They're part of who we are," he said Friday. But he added that rivalries have to be evaluated independently to see which ones are worth preserving in an expanded league. "We’re going into this with the idea that rivalries really matter," Delany said. "But not all rivalries are equal."

Timeline with Nebraska: Delany and other Big Ten officials met with Nebraska officials three or four weeks ago to have informal discussions in an undisclosed location (it wasn't Lincoln, where Delany made his first trip Friday, or Chicago). Osborne also had briefly discussed expansion with Ohio State head coach Jim Tressel and Wisconsin athletic director Barry Alvarez (a former Nebraska player and coach), both of whom told him the Big Ten was considering the Huskers. The process only really heated up after the Big 12 issued stay-or-go ultimatums to its members. If the Big 12 -- and Pac-10 -- didn't speed things up, the Big Ten would have continued to move along slowly. But Nebraska seems happy with the way things worked out. "We don’t feel like we’re walking into a room of strangers," Perlman said. Added Osborne: "We feel we share a lot of common values with what we know of Big Ten institutions."

Will we officially welcome Big Red today?

• The (Lincoln) Journal Star's Steven M. Sipple breaks down how Nebraska has reached the Big Ten's doorstep, a push that started with Tom Osborne being named athletic director and then hiring Bo Pelini.
• Former Purdue coach Joe Tiller thinks the Big Ten will cash in big time from expansion, Jeff Rabjohns writes in The Indianapolis Star.
• If and when Nebraska enters the league, the Big Ten will add another football-crazed state, Bill Rabinowitz writes in The Columbus Dispatch. Nebraska and the Big Ten form a strange partnership, Mitch Albom writes in the Detroit Free Press.
• Minnesota's former coach Glen Mason doesn't like the Gophers' title chances in a bigger Big Ten, Marcus Fuller writes in the (St. Paul) Pioneer Press.
• Missouri sounds worried if the Big Ten doesn't come calling. A Big Ten source tells Dave Matter that Missouri isn't high on the Big Ten's wish list.
• The Milwaukee Journal Sentinel's Jeff Potrykus wonders what's next for the Big Ten in expansion after Nebraska.
• Penn State players are excited about Big Ten expansion, Cory Giger writes in The Altoona Mirror. Former Iowa players are big fans of Big Red in the Big Ten, Pat Harty writes in the Iowa City Press-Citizen.
• Wisconsin and Nebraska don't have much on-field history, but the two programs are linked in several ways, Mike Lucas writes in The Capital Times.
• Are there any lessons Michigan can take away from the NCAA's handling of the USC case?
• Indiana's newest recruit will see a familiar face in Bloomington in co-defensive coordinator Brian George, Dustin Dopirak writes in The (Bloomington) Herald-Times (subscription required).
• Nebraska is nice and all, but the Big Ten still really wants Notre Dame, Herb Gould writes in the Chicago Sun-Times.