ESPN College Football

Never let it be said that everyone thinks the SEC is better than the Big Ten.

Missouri, all dressed up in a bridal gown and just waiting for a proposal, may move on from the Big 12 to the SEC. But the Associated Press has reported that the school would prefer an invite from the Big Ten.

One problem: the feeling apparently isn't mutual. The Tigers were all dressed up and ready to join the Big Ten dance last year, with the governor even publicly advocating for the move. But the Big Ten was just not that into Mizzou. Nebraska was and remains a much more attractive partner.

Big Ten commissioner Jim Delany has repeatedly said during this latest round of expansion madness that his league is perfectly happy with 12 teams after adding Nebraska in the offseason. Expanding for the sake of expanding is not going to happen, and Missouri is not enough of a prime target for the conference to change its mind.

The school does make plenty of sense for the Big Ten, including geographically and culturally (Missouri is a member of the prestigious American Association of Universities). It makes a natural rival for Illinois, Iowa and Nebraska.

But unless the league suddenly changes course and decides to go to 14 or 16 teams -- a move that would likely only happen if a home-run addition like Texas or Notre Dame became available -- then Missouri isn't coming aboard.

So the Tigers will have to hope to settle for the SEC. When the Tigers inevitably get their brains beat in during football season down South, they'll probably still be wishing they were in the Big Ten.

Send in your questions here for Friday's mailblog.

Let's get to 'em ...

Scott from Lafayette, Ind., writes: What are the chances of taking away Notre Dame's share of the BCS pool and have them compete for the money as all the other "Independent" and "Small" market schools? I have a feeling if you take away the ND clause in the BCS, ND would be in the Big Ten.

Adam Rittenberg: Scott, I agree that BCS access is the biggest component to Notre Dame eventually joining a conference, along with having a good, stable home for all of its other sports programs. If Notre Dame's BCS access changes in a negative way, Notre Dame absolutely has to join a conference, whether it's the Big Ten, ACC or somewhere else. While some have made good points about the ACC being a good locational fit for Notre Dame, the Big Ten would make sense for Notre Dame and really help the other Irish sports programs because of the Big Ten Network. The ACC simply can't offer the same.

---

Markus from Boca Raton, Fla., writes: Adam, is it me or does it seem as though the Big Ten is being left in the expansion dust? First the best two eastern candidates join the ACC. Now we have talk of Texas and Oklahoma along with Texas Tech and OK State possibly moving to the PAC-12. Also a possible Big 12/Big East merger of those remaining. Will we end up as the lesser of the Power Conferences?

Adam Rittenberg: Markus, a patient approach isn't necessarily a bad one. The ACC hasn't added any teams that move the needle nationally. Syracuse and Pitt don't wow me. The Pac-12 certainly could with Oklahoma and Texas, but let's see if the Longhorns actually go West. I know it's hard for Big Ten fans to sit and wait, but the league is very strong with 12 teams and shouldn't add teams just for the sake of adding. And as former Big East commissioner Mike Tranghese said, the Big Ten could end up being the big winner by waiting until the dust settles and Notre Dame and/or Texas have to make a move.

---

David from Mauston, Wis., writes: Hey Adam, is Iowa's 2011 football season even just a little reminiscient of Ricky Stanzi's first full season at qb? inconsistency dominated stretches of that season as well. after the comeback saturday, it reminded of that season too. all of the comebacks that season too, Michigan State especially. Plus the unknowns for the defense coming into that season as well.Granted they didnt give up as much as this defense has but they had some of the same questions then too. Vandenberg could be looked at the same way a few starts but nothing outside of Ohio State to really go off of. Do you think they could come close to that season if they can become even close to consistent?

Adam Rittenberg: David, while the comeback against Pitt might have looked like 2009, I think this Iowa season more resembles 2008. Let's remember in 2009 Iowa had a record-setting start and, despite all those close victories, boasted a very solid football team. The 2009 Hawkeyes had far fewer holes than the current squad, which is replacing very productive players on both sides of the ball. Like the '08 squad, Iowa has the potential to get things together and be a very tough team down the stretch in Big Ten play. But I also think these Hawkeyes will encounter some bumps in the road along the way, much like the '08 team did.

---

Brian from Yankton, S.D., writes: Do you really think the B1G will have to expand? I do not get it. More teams does not mean more money. The teams you would add would have to be better than your average team, hopefully by a lot. Also, won't these 'super-conferences' just cannibalize each other and make it that much tougher to get to a BCS game and especially a championship game? (This remains true for a playoff scenario). Think about the PAC 16 with Texas, Oklahoma, OK State, and TTU; how could any team survive without at least two loses? Why not sit back with a solid 12 team conference, share the money fewer ways, and allow for a fair competitive balance and some parity? It seems like the B1G would have a huge advantage sticking with 12 teams and allowing everyone else go to 16.

Adam Rittenberg: Brian, I'm glad there's at least one Big Ten fan out there who feels this way. There's certainly a lot of pressure to keep up with other leagues, but as I've said all along, the Big Ten is very strong at 12 and doesn't have to expand to ensure its survival. Time will tell what superconferences mean to a playoff push, but I completely agree that the Big Ten shouldn't share its money with programs who aren't bringing something to the table. Also, you bring up a good point about the cannibalizing. The Big Ten for years benefited from not having a championship game and having its best teams have fewer losses and better chances for BCS at-large berths. Staying at 12 with everyone going to 16 could be an advantage in this way. The other element you maintain by staying at 12 is intimacy -- playing your league brethren more often. You simply don't have that in a 16-team conference.

---

Brian from Hudsonville, Mich., writes: You have been reiterating along with many other media outlets the point of "how is this U-M team different from last year and 09's team". One major thing that sticks out as reason to view this as different is this team's (coaches') ability to adjust and adapt and get better as the game goes on; especially on defense. I was half tempted to shut the TV off vs ND after the 2nd easy drive for a score ND had anticipating a blowout, but then Mattison adjusted his D and really shut down ND. Also, I'd argue that Denard is the ONLY weapon U-M has. As evidenced in the ND game, the WR group made some huge plays, going up and getting jump balls, downfield blocking, etc. So whats different? The D not sticking to a bad gameplan and adapting to get stops on 3rd down and the O also adapting to take what the D will give them. Is U-M the team they want to be? Not yet, but the simple in-game strategy of adapting is what makes this 3-0 start different than those of 09-10. Wouldn't you agree?

Adam Rittenberg: Brian, you bring up some good points here. Defensive coordinator Greg Mattison is an excellent in-game coach, and his adjustments should help Michigan's defense overcome some inherent problems this season. I still worry about what happens to that secondary, however, when it faces some of the Big Ten's better passing offenses like Michigan State and Northwestern (Dan Persa should be back). You can do a lot with blitzes and formations, but eventually you're going to get exposed. As for the offense, I credit Al Borges for sticking to what Denard Robinson does best, even if it's not the way Michigan will play in the long term. I just watch Michigan and see some issues that will show up when the competition gets better. This will be an interesting week against a good San Diego State team.

---

Adam from East Lansing, Mich., writes: Regarding your topic on Missouri as the best expansion option for the Big Ten I will have to respectfully disagree. Obviously Notre Dame is choice one, two, and three, but if we are going to go to 14 I will look to the east coast rather then going west. I think Virginia would be a great addition to the Big Ten as they fulfill many obligations. They have outstanding academics and adding ND and UVA would give us two more top twenty schools making us far and away the best academic conference in the school. Also, they open the Baltimore and D.C. markets not to mention the population of Virginia. This is much better then what Missouri would add. Now athletically Virginia might be lacking but they are not terrible and could be competitive. Just a thought Adam, keep up the good work!

Adam Rittenberg: Adam, I agree there's a lot to like about Virginia, but would the Cavaliers be willing to pay the increased exit fee ($20 million) to leave the ACC for the Big Ten? I'm not sure they would. Same goes for Maryland, which would be an even better addition for the Big Ten because of its proximity to Washington D.C. From an academics standpoint, Virginia is a home run. But from an athletics standpoint, Missouri is a much better add. Virginia football is beyond irrelevant in a mediocre league, while Missouri has built a very solid program under Gary Pinkel. Plus, Missouri already has some built-in rivalries with Big Ten teams like Illinois and Nebraska. I'm not opposed to Virginia at all, but Missouri has the edge in my mind.

---

Casey from Kansas City, Mo., writes: Doesn't it make most sense for the Big 10, if it were to expand to add Kansas, Mizzou, ND, and a team from the East to be named later?

Adam Rittenberg: Bingo! Again, this would be a reluctant move, but if the Big Ten had to go to 16, and Texas was off the table, the league should add Notre Dame, Missouri, Kansas and Rutgers unless an ACC school like Maryland or Virginia is willing to pay the higher exit fee. Those four additions provide a variety of different benefits, including a national basketball power in Kansas.

The Illinois-Missouri series goes on hiatus after Saturday's clash in St. Louis. For the men wearing orange helmets, it seems like the break can't come soon enough.

Illinois has opened its season against the rival Tigers five times since 2002, including each of the past three years. All five games have produced the same result for the Fighting Illini: 0-1.

Many forecast another opening loss for Ron Zook's crew Saturday at the Edward Jones Dome. Translation: there's no better time for the Illini to step up and get some revenge.

If Illinois wants to make a statement that things are turning around, the Missouri game provides the perfect platform.

"They're all important, but this one has an awful lot of importance on it," Zook told ESPN.com. "Obviously, we haven’t had a lot of success against them."

The Missouri game has been a buzzkill for Illinois in each of the past two seasons. After a run to the Rose Bowl in 2007, preseason No. 20 Illinois entered the dome to face No. 6 Missouri in one of the more anticipated matchups of the 2008 opening weekend.

Game result: Missouri 52, Illinois 42

Illinois season result: 5-7

Optimism had been restored by the time Illinois made the trip to St. Louis last year. Quarterback Juice Williams and receiver Arrelious Benn had returned, linebacker Martez Wilson seemed on the brink of a huge season and the team had gone through a very successful preseason camp. Plus, Chase Daniel and Jeremy Maclin were no longer on Missouri's roster.

Game result: Missouri 37, Illinois 9

Illinois season result: 3-9

"We were healthy, we were fresh, no one was beat up, we put a big emphasis on it," Zook recalled. "And we get over there and the second play of the game, it was like somebody threw a blanket over us."

Benn and running back Jason Ford both went down with injuries. Wilson suffered a neck injury in the first quarter but remained in the game, only to learn days later that he needed season-ending surgery.

The team never fully recovered, plummeting to a 1-6 start.

As Zook prepares his team for another tough opener against Mizzou, he doesn't stiff-arm what has taken place the past few years.

“Traditionally, Missouri’s probably played if not their best, one of their best games of the year against us," Zook said. "That's the one thing we've tried to stress to our guys. You look at Missouri in the first game of the year, you look at them in the end, and they're not the same team.

"We've got to match the way they're playing."

Illinois isn't as healthy as it was a year ago, as two projected starters in the secondary, safety Supo Sanni and cornerback Terry Hawthorne, will miss the game. Missouri will play without running back Derrick Washington, but the Tigers still have quarterback Blaine Gabbert, who torched the Illini for 319 pass yards and three touchdowns last year.

Redshirt freshman Nathan Scheelhaase makes his first career start for the Illini, who debut a new offense under coordinator Paul Petrino.

"I'm like everyone else, I want to see him play, too," Zook said. "I'm not going to say he’s going to be perfect, but he’ll learn from his mistakes and he'll do a great job."

After last year's loss, Zook and his players lamented that something happened on the bus ride from Champaign to St. Louis. No one could pinpoint the problem, but it zapped Illinois' mojo from a strong camp.

Saturday is a chance to get the momentum back.

"We all have something to prove," defensive end Clay Nurse said. "You can dwell on what your season was like last year, but I'm not one to dwell on that.

"I'm just ready to go out here and show people we can produce and be successful."

The mail didn't come on Friday because I didn't have time to deliver it. My bad. Here's my attempt at making it up to you.

Mike from New Haven, Conn., writes: Adam,Is it possible PSU is keeping the qb situation a mystery in order to keep Alabama in the dark? Any chance the true starter doesn't start vs YSU to have bama prepare for the wrong type of offense? or do they play all 3 equally and force bama to prepare for 3 different looks?

Adam Rittenberg: I like the conspiracy theory there, Mike. But I really think if one player had separated himself, Penn State would announce the starter for the opener. The staff did so in 2008 with Daryll Clark, although I recognize this is a different situation with three relative unknowns. I think it's more likely we see multiple quarterbacks against Youngstown than Penn State deciding to conceal the starter's true identity until Week 2. Whomever starts in Tuscaloosa really needs some game experience before heading down there.

---

Bob from New Orleans writes: Adam, if the Buckeyes win the NC, and they will, where do you think JT goes?? I don't see him moving on to the NFL, and there's no way he's moving to another college, so retirement?

Adam Rittenberg: Bob, retirement from coaching would be the likeliest option for Jim Tressel. While I'm not saying there's a strong chance he moves on after 2010, I wouldn't be totally shocked to see him retire if Ohio State wins the national title. Take a look at this picture of Tressel after the 2002 national title and how he looks now. The job has taken a toll, which is totally understandable. Plus, his wife had some health issues this summer. And he has always said he doesn't want to coach into his seventies. Unlike some coaches, Tressel has other interests and could be very successful in other arenas (athletic administration, politics). I couldn't see him coaching in the NFL and certainly not at another college.

---

Scott from Kansas City, Mo., writes: Looks like NU (104) fell out of the USNWR Top 100, and MU (94) back in. So much for all Big Ten schools being in the Top 100. But then again, why add the 18th largest state to your footprint when you can add the 40th? And why add a school that has been relevant in recent years, when you can add another school that hasn't?Cheers

Adam Rittenberg: Husker fans, you want me to handle this or do you have it covered? Scott, while Mizzou has had some nice seasons lately, Nebraska clearly is a better addition to the Big Ten. The size of the state and the U.S. News ranking matters a little bit, but Nebraska brings national championships, legendary coaches and a program recognized around the country. Go up to a casual fan in L.A. or New York and ask them to name 10 college football teams. They'll probably include Nebraska. Missouri? Not so much. The Big Ten can put Nebraska in games against Ohio State, Penn State, Michigan or even Iowa and Wisconsin and draw national attention. Missouri doesn't move the needle nearly as much. Again, Missouri brings a lot to the table, but the Big Ten clearly made the right call with Nebraska.

---

Chris from Philly writes: How annoyed is the Michigan faithful when they see what a stud Ryan Mallet has become at Arkansas and know that RichRod ran him out of town with his spread offense? Is that one of the main factors that will bite him when he does get fired that he did not utilize the talent already there and possibly could have won 8-10 gameshis first two years then slowly implement his style?

Adam Rittenberg: Chris, there are a lot of reasons why Michigan fans can knock Rich Rodriguez, but the Ryan Mallett thing isn't one of them. Before Michigan, Rodriguez had been incredibly successful winning games in his style, with the spread. You can't expect people in leadership roles, especially college football coaches, to completely scrap what had made them successful. I recognize the transition to the spread hasn't gone smoothly in Ann Arbor, but you have to stick to what you know and who you are. Rodriguez couldn't run a pro-style offense just for Mallett, who clearly has benefited from one at Arkansas.

---

Stephen from Ankeny, Iowa, writes: Do you think that Dantonio has really raised the bar at Michigan State the last three years. I would argue that he has been the benficiary of a couple of wins each year that could have gone either way (also because of a down Michigan). Do you think that his three years there has really shown improvement over the John L. Smith years or are they merely treading water? In a larger context, are there programs in the Big Ten that are kind of in the same boat with no real chance to move up in the pecking order (e.g.: Minnesota)? It's pretty apparent that the moves by both Minnesota and Michigan State to fire their coaches (Glen Mason and John L. Smith) have not resulted in better results on the field and in Minnesota's case worse results. Thoughts?

Adam Rittenberg: Stephen, I respectfully disagree with your take on Mark Dantonio. He has lost a ton of close games, several of which could have taken the 2007 and 2009 seasons from average to very good. Although 2010 is very big for Dantonio and the Spartans, who have a great opportunity with a very favorable schedule, the program has stabilized since John L. was sent packing. Just look at the recruiting. Michigan State has really upgraded in that area, especially locally, and brought in players like Larry Caper and William Gholston. The Spartans certainly have benefited a bit from Michigan's struggles, but Dantonio definitely has things headed in the right direction. The one thing he can't afford is another bad off-field incident. ... It's a different case with Minnesota, where the jury is still out on this coaching regime. Tim Brewster and his assistants have recruited well and played tougher schedules, but the big wins haven't come, especially late in the season. Brewster needs some quality wins this fall to show he can take the program further than Mason did.

---

Keith from Cedar Rapids, Iowa, writes: Adam there is a possibility that the big ten could end in a three way tie between Iowa, Wisconsin, and Ohio State (asmunig they all win out). I know its alot of work but could you break down the scenario? Who do you think will be ranked high enough to get the BCS bid is national title still open to a one loss big ten team which team goes? it would be a hudge mess! a three way conference championship! thanks adam

Adam Rittenberg: Keith, here's how the BCS/Rose Bowl tiebreaking procedures work in the Big Ten (in order). I'm guessing Option 4 would be the most likely scenario with an Ohio State/Iowa/Wisconsin tie. Option 1: If one of those three teams beat the other two, it wins the tiebreaker. Option 2: If two of the teams beat the other squad, the other squad is eliminated. Then it would be head-to-head for who wins the tiebreaker (this is unlikely unless all three teams finish 6-2 in league play). Option 3: Overall record. The tiebreaker winner would have a better overall record than the other two teams. Option 4: If Ohio State, Iowa and Wisconsin all finish at 11-1, with all three losses taking place within the group, the highest-ranked team in the final BCS standings would go to the Rose Bowl or BCS title game.

It has been hard enough for Illinois to slow down Missouri's offense with a healthy secondary the past few years.

Now the Fighting Illini will try to stop Blaine Gabbert and co. without two projected starters.

Starting cornerback Terry Hawthorne will miss 3-6 weeks with a stress fracture in his foot, Illinois head coach Ron Zook said today. Hawthorne had a screw inserted after dealing with the injury in his fifth metatarsal.

"He had [the injury] as a junior in high school, and he didn't practice for a week," Zook told ESPN.com. "He's such a tough kid, he doesn't complain about anything. It bothered him a little bit during camp, but he never said anything, so he kept going. You love him because he doesn't ever complain, but if he would have said anything, maybe we would have been able to get away with just giving him a few days off. But he'll be fine and we'll be fine."

Hawthorne's injury comes just days after Illinois lost junior Supo Sanni, the projected starter at strong safety, for the season with a ruptured right Achilles' tendon.

Hawthorne was one of few bright spots for Illinois in 2009, starting five games as a true freshman and recording an interception and five pass breakups.

The recent losses will put defensive backs like Tavon Wilson, Travon Bellamy, Trulon Henry and Miami Thomas in the spotlight. Justin Green recently moved from running back to defensive back, and receivers Steve Hull and Jack Ramsey also could see some work in the secondary.

"You get concerned in the depth department," Zook said, "but Travon Bellamy's had a great camp and really has done well. We have Tavon Wilson playing at both places, corner and safety. And we're taking a look at Justin Green, who really has a chance to be a special player for us."

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.

It's a big day for Nebraska and a different kind of day for Missouri.

Big 12 commissioner Dan Beebe said on a conference call that the Big Ten isn't pursuing any other Big 12 teams but Nebraska. At least for right now.

"My understanding is there aren't any other conference members considered by the Big Ten," Beebe said.

Things could always change, and Missouri would be on the Big Ten's radar if it has a Phase 2 to expansion. But the folks in the Show-Me State can't be feeling too comfortable right now, especially after all of Missouri's public talk about wanting to be in the Big Ten. Keep being that proud member of the Big 12, and, as always, stay classy.

Anything on your mind?

Mike from New York City writes: Hey Adam,The PSU-Nebraska series over the past century is extremely close with PSU winning 7-6. There seems to be a lot of dormant animosity between the two schools after the bad call in the 1982 NC game, and the lack of a shared NC title in 1994. The largest crowd ever in Beaver Stadium was the Nebraska game in 2002. And the geography of the two schools puts them in a prime position to have a "Fringe State" rivalry within the big ten, as they both occupy the furthest reaches of the B10. How would you feel about changing PSU's end of season game from Michigan State to Nebraska for the Fringe State Trophy? I feel like that would be a rivalry both schools would care about very much.. a lot more than the MSU-PSU rivalry anyway.

Adam Rittenberg: Let's do it! I would really like to see that game at the end of the season, especially since the Michigan State-Penn State series doesn't do much for either fan base. One thing to consider: Nebraska always has played Colorado around the same time, so we need to see what happens with that series now that the Buffaloes are heading to the Pac-10. If Nebraska and Colorado play every year in September, I could definitely see things worked so that they play Penn State (or Iowa) at the end of November.

---

Jon from Ohio writes: Adam, can you provide a few steps the Big Ten can take to prevent collateral damage from expansion that the ACC seemed to have suffered? For example, the ACC championship game doesn't sell out, the basketball league was actually weakened and every prediction seemed to have worked out opposite. How does the Big Ten prevent this?

Adam Rittenberg: The Big Ten has some built-in advantages over the ACC, namely more tradition in football and larger fan bases. Jim Delany always brings up the ACC championship game as if to say, "Hey, it's not a guaranteed success." To which I roll my eyes. You put a Big Ten championship game in Indianapolis, and you're telling me it wouldn't be a super hot ticket every year? It would be a huge success for the Big Ten. You bring up a good point about the basketball product being weakened. Nebraska certainly doesn't add to the Big Ten that way. Notre Dame is an average hoops program, and Rutgers is totally off the radar in men's hoops (great in women's hoops). That has to be a bit of a concern with expansion, but if Nebraska is the only addition, the hoops product remains pretty strong.

---

Tim from Austin, Texas, writes: Adam, I'm a big UM and Big 10 as a whole fan. Everything that's going on with expansion has of course peaked interest, but something Kirk Herbstreit said... I disagree with. Kerby said that the Pac-10 is "stealing the thunder" from the Big 10. I know that Texas is the big fish here, but the Big Fish comes with so much baggage. Texas A&M and the Tech problem are 2 things that I don't think the Big 10 wanted to deal with, so they won't. Texas is a great addition, but with the package deal that includes the entire Big 10 South (minus Baylor), I don't think the Big 10 lost. It's like asking the hot girl to prom, but she makes you take all her fat friends too. What do you think? Is the Big 10 Losing?

Adam Rittenberg: Tim, I totally agree with you, but be prepared to hear people saying the Big Ten "lost" the expansion game if it only adds Nebraska and the Pac-10 expands by six. People will look at a much stronger Pac-10 on the field and disregard the extra baggage stuff. The bottom line is these two leagues -- Big Ten and Pac-10 -- are in different positions, although they have some similar philosophies. The Pac-10 really needs to expand to improve its brand and become more relevant nationally. I contend that while expansion helps the Big Ten, it's not absolutely necessary. The Big Ten would be compromising a lot to take on all of Texas' baggage. But again, be prepared for some Big Ten bashing.

---

Nathan from Montana writes: Do you think that Jim Delany made a huge mistake announcing his intentions and plans in relation to expansion, Adam? Not really announcing that the Big Ten was looking to expand, but announcing some details? Also, did the Pac-10 trump Delany in a major way? Is there anything the Big Ten can do and will each Big Ten school still make more money than any other conference (since money drives a lot of things)?

Adam Rittenberg: He might have made a mistake in thinking other leagues wouldn't react aggressively to what the Big Ten is doing. It's clear to me that the Big Ten has been forced to rush things now because of how quickly Larry Scott and the Pac-10 are moving. But if Scott was going to expand the Pac-10 anyway, did it matter that the Big Ten went public? And as far as the details, there haven't been too many that have damaged the Big Ten. Besides Texas, there isn't a school that both the Pac-10 and Big Ten coveted in expansion. Regarding money, the Big Ten and SEC always will generate a ton of revenue, but an expanded Pac-10 could enter the discussion if things go well.

---

Mark from Columbus, Ohio, writes: Given the penalties that USC will suffer over the next few years and the recruting promises made to the contrary, what are thechances that a recruit like Seantrel Henderson can re commit to another school?

Adam Rittenberg: It will be very, very interesting, Mark. We'll really find out about Lane Kiffin's recruiting skills now, as he needs to keep this team together and find ways to bring in small but productive recruiting classes during the next three years. Henderson certainly came close to signing with a Big Ten school (Ohio State and Minnesota both were in the mix), and I'm sure he's considering all of his options.

---

Cory from Ohio writes: Hey Adam, what happens if only Nebraska will go to the Big Ten? What will happen to Mizzou and the Big East teams that are interested? Also, will Notre Dame go to the Big Ten if it is the 13th and final entree?

Adam Rittenberg: If it's just Nebraska, the Big Ten forms a 12-team league, splits into two divisions, holds a championship game and that's the end of it. But I have a feeling this is just Phase 1 of the expansion process. Missouri is on the radar along with several others, but not at the very top of the list. Notre Dame knows the deal and can join as Nos. 13, 14, 15 or 16, but it has to actually want/accept the reality of being in a conference. Notre Dame likely could have been No. 12, but now I think it's more likely the Irish are team No. 16, forced into saying yes.

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.

Kaner!

• Nebraska's impending move to the Big Ten is both "stunning and completely logical," SI.com's Stewart Mandel writes. The Sporting News' Matt Hayes thinks Nebraska is just Phase 1 for a Big Ten that will expand to 16.
• The Big Ten should roll out the red carpet for Nebraska, CBSSports.com's Dennis Dodd writes.
• Some more questions and answers about Big Ten expansion from The Columbus Dispatch's Bill Rabinowitz.
• Missouri has no Big Ten offer to apply for admission, Mike DeArmond writes in The Kansas City Star.
• The Demar Dorsey situation reveals what Michigan thinks of Rich Rodriguez and his recruiting practices, Drew Sharp writes in the Detroit Free Press. Michigan AD Dave Brandon says he didn't stand in the way of Dorsey's admission, Angelique Chengelis writes in The Detroit News.
• State politicians wants to ensure both Iowa and Iowa State aren't hurt by conference realignment, Marc Morehouse writes in The (Cedar Rapids) Gazette. Good luck with that one, Chet. The Magic Bus and its famous tailgate at Iowa games is on the move, Josh O'Leary writes in the Iowa City Press-Citizen.
• The (Harrisburg) Patriot-News' Jared Shanker looks at Big Ten coaches and players on the hot seat in 2010.
• Cameron Heyward is afraid of his girlfriend.
• Wisconsin head coach Bret Bielema weighs in on division alignment and some Badger-ish items, Jeff Potrykus writes in the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel.
• Minnesota is making progress in the classroom, Myron Medcalf writes in the Star Tribune.

Hail to the team
The stadium rings as everyone sings,
The Scarlet and Cream.
Cheers for a victory, echo our loyalty;
So, on mighty men,
The eyes of the land, upon every hand,
Are looking at you.
Fight on for victory.

• If a Big Ten invitation to apply comes Nebraska's way, the Huskers likely would accept, colleague Andy Katz reports. Tom Osborne has Nebraska on a path to the Big Ten, Steven Sipple writes the Lincoln Journal-Star. A move to the Big Ten would please Nebraska's eggheads as well, Matthew Hansen and Leslie Reed writes in the Omaha World-Herald.
• The Big Ten's final expansion should include Nebraska, Notre Dame and Rutgers, and forget the rest, Teddy Greenstein writes in the Chicago Tribune. Perhaps Nebraska will only be Step 1 in the Big Ten's expansion push, Greenstein writes.
• Thoughts on Missouri's situation from the Columbia Daily Tribune's Dave Matter. Missouri has until June 17 to make a decision, Vahe Gregorian writes in the St. Louis Post-Dispatch.
• Get ready for at least two super conferences, CBSsports.com's Dennis Dodd writes.
• Demar Dorsey tells mgoblog that he'll re-open his recruitment if he can't get in to Michigan.
• Indiana athletic director Fred Glass weighs in on expansion, from The (Bloomington) Herald-Times (subscription required).
• Illinois coach Ron Zook talks about quarterback Jacob Charest's departure from the team, Chris Hine writes in the Chicago Tribune.
• Iowa officials are far from the center of the expansion talks, Marc Morehouse writes in The (Cedar Rapids) Gazette.
• If students behave badly at Wisconsin games, they can lose their season tickets, Andy Baggot writes in the Wisconsin State Journal. Former Badgers star Ron Dayne gets his stolen rings back.

After the Big Ten's spring meetings last month in Chicago, it became clear that the league wouldn't operate on anyone else's expansion timetable but its own.

Commissioner Jim Delany said no votes were imminent, and league sources said back then and again last week the process likely would go through the fall before a resolution.

Have the events of recent days changed things?

First, we saw the e-mails between Delany and Ohio State president E. Gordon Gee about "fast-tracking it" and "agility and swiftness of foot is our friend." And then Saturday night, the Austin American-Statesman reported that Big 12 presidents are giving Nebraska and Missouri a deadline of Friday to say whether they'll remain in the league or leave for the Big Ten.

"Nebraska has until 5 p.m. on Friday to tell us what they're going to do," one school official said, according to the American-Statesman. "The same deal for Missouri. They have to tell us they're not going to the Big Ten."

If they don't meet the deadline, at least six Big 12 schools, including Texas and Oklahoma, likely would bolt for the Pac-10, creating potential Armageddon in college sports.

Now the Big Ten hasn't extended any formal invitations to anyone and continues to work toward landing a major program, such as Texas or Notre Dame. Texas is obviously on the table for every league exploring expansion, and I'm told Notre Dame remains in the mix for the Big Ten and doesn't know what it wants to do.

While Nebraska and Missouri certainly are strong candidates, I've been told no formal meetings have taken place to discuss them. Are those schools confident enough they're part of the Big Ten's expansion plan? Will they demand an answer from Delany in the next week?

The Big Ten wants to take its time with this process, but Delany and his crew might need to pick up the pace. Then again, Delany isn't the type to cater to anyone else's ultimatums.

It will be very interesting to hear from the commissioner today at the meeting of Big Ten presidents and chancellors at league headquarters in Park Ridge, Ill. The agenda isn't public because the meetings are held in executive session, but you can bet expansion is the No. 1 topic being discussed. It just has to be.

Media aren't allowed in the building, but apparently Delany wasn't kidding when he mentioned all of us enjoying some beer and brats today. Yum.

Delany and Michigan State president Lou Anna K. Simon, the chair of the Big Ten's council of presidents/chancellors, will address reporters around 4 p.m. ET. My pal Teddy Greenstein has a good preview of the meetings.

I'm definitely planning to ask about the Big 12/Pac-10 buzz and how that affects the Big Ten's plans. Check back this afternoon, as I'll have a recap on the blog.

Big 12 commissioner Dan Beebe wants some definitive answers, and he wants them by April 2011. I don't blame him.

Beebe on Tuesday said he wants Big 12 teams to commit to the league -- or get out -- before the league starts negotiating a new TV contract with Fox Sports Net. The Big 12's contract with ESPN/ABC runs through the 2015-16 season, but Beebe understandably wants to know what the league looks like before meeting with the Fox brass next April.

Will Beebe's deadline impact the Big Ten, which might end up courting some Big 12 teams? Probably not.

Although the Big Ten's expansion study isn't moving as quickly as everyone would like it to, we should have some answers during the fall or the early winter. The league in December set out a 12- to 18-month timetable for the study, and though April 2011 falls in the middle of that window, things likely will be decided before.

As I wrote last month, the Big Ten isn't operating on anyone else's timetable but its own. The league also wants to avoid mistakes made in past expansions, and minimize the damage on the back end. There's more than enough time to figure things out before the Big 12 begins its negotiations with Fox. Big Ten commissioner Jim Delany said that when the Big Ten decides to begin formal discussions with potential new members, the process will be fast.

Colleague David Ubben writes:

What doesn't make sense is forcing Nebraska or Missouri to definitively commit to the Big 12 without fully knowing the Big Ten's intentions. Beebe's deadline gives the Big Ten plenty of time to make up its mind, even if it's two months short of the tail end of the Big Ten's timetable. To get his wish, Beebe still needs Delany to cooperate, and it's possible Beebe's April aim won't make more than a blip on the Big Ten's radar. ...

Will they be invited to apply? What percent of the Big Ten's television revenue will they receive immediately? How long until it's a full share? If Nebraska or Missouri can't answer those questions -- and the countless others -- the Big Ten would be doing a disservice to two possible future members. Helping them do it by April would be the best option for all concerned parties, both conferences and both schools.

Delany wants to be thorough with this process, but when the time comes to act -- and sources say it likely will come late this fall or early this winter -- he will do so quickly.

If you haven't figured it out already, you can reach me here. And don't forget to follow me on Twitter (@ESPN_BigTen).

Ian from Flint, Mich., writes: My question deals with the instate and overall recruiting argument for UM and MSU. All I read and here about anymore is how MSU is dominating in state recruiting these day, and while [William] Gholston last year and [Lawrence] Thomas this year are major pickups, I don't think anyone could say MSU is dominating. I think it is more that UM can recruit nationally while MSU has to primarily stay within the region. Plus, states like Florida, which UM recruits HARD, produces more talent than Michigan anyway, so I don't see this "MSU dominates recruiting" having any credibility, do you? Thanks

Adam Rittenberg: Some good points here, Ian. Michigan State clearly has improved its in-state recruiting, particularly in the Detroit area. That's not really up for debate. But some of that is caused by Michigan steering much of its recruiting efforts to other regions, namely Florida, where Rich Rodriguez has had success throughout his career. And it's true that on average, Florida produces more elite prospects than Michigan. I look at it like this: The Spartans are closing the gap in local and regional recruiting, but Michigan has changed its recruiting philosophy under Rodriguez and hasn't done too poorly locally or nationally. I would agree that "dominating" is a word thrown around too much.

---

Thomas from West Lafayette, Ind., writes: I'm a Kansas student from Big Ten country, I'm wondering why the expansion hype hasn't included KU. I mean KU has a BCS bowl title in the past 5 years, basketball powerhouse, super loyal fans close to a big TV market (KC) it makes geographic sense. And Kansas is in the oft-cited AAU for academics. If the Big Ten wants Mizzou, they should think about including Kansas, as the number one reason Mizzou doesn't want to leave is the rivalry. I would love to see IU vs KU basketball games every year.

Adam Rittenberg: Thomas, you aren't the first person to ask about Kansas and Big Ten expansion. While KU football has elevated its profile in recent years, it remains a basketball powerhouse and always will be. This expansion is largely about football, so a school like Nebraska makes a bigger impact for your league on the gridiron. Nebraska still moves the needle in football, and I wouldn't say the same about Kansas, which would be an excellent hoops addition. So why Missouri over Kansas? Mizzou is located closer to the Big Ten footprint and already has a rivalry with Illinois. Kansas would have to build new rivalries with the current Big Ten schools, although it would have a great one with Mizzou if both joined the league. I also think the Big Ten could get the markets it needs with Missouri alone, rather than Missouri and Kansas.

---

Will from Columbus, Ohio, writes: With Football just about to kick off summer workouts what are your thoughts on the Ohio State backfield? As they say the buckeyes have a lot of horses in the stables. with Saine and Herron leading the way with Hall and Martin making some noise last year. This year with a healthy J. Barry and newcomers Hyde/Smith could also be in the mix of things. How is JT going to keep these guys happy. I dont see 1000 yd rusher anytime soon for the buckeye for awhile.

Adam Rittenberg: Brandon Saine probably has the best shot to reach 1,000 rushing yards this year but Ohio State certainly has a crowded backfield. I don't know if Jim Tressel can keep everyone totally happy, aside from telling them that the team goals are above individual ones and that the competition for carries remains open. There's no Beanie Wells on this team, and if a guy makes progress in practice, he should have a chance to increase his load on game day. Ohio State will enter the season with Saine and Dan Herron as the top two backs. Jordan Hall and Jaamal Berry are intriguing, but both need to do more in preseason camp.

---

Matt from Iowa City, Iowa, writes: Adam, considering how good Derrell Johnson-Koulianos has been for Iowa, and the fact that the second part of his last name begins K-O-U-L, why hasn't the nickname "DJ Koul" caught on? People already call him DJK, so why don't people go the extra mile and go with DJ Koul? It sounds better. As a lifelong Hawkeye fan, this has bothered me for some time.

Adam Rittenberg: Ha, I like the suggestion, Matt. I'll pass this along to DJK and see what he thinks. Knowing Derrell, I'm sure he's very excited that you're spending a lot of time thinking about his nickname situation.

---

Austin from Kansas City, Mo., writes: Hi Adam i have a friend who has been offered scholarships to play at Nebraska, Kstate, Kansas, Mizzou, and Iowa. He wants to play on a team that will have a legitimate title shot in the next four years. He is torn between the five and really doesn't know where he wants to go. I have been telling him to look more into Iowa and Nebraska what do you think? He is a 6'2 265lbs defensive end with a 4.7 forty. Very quick. who would he have the best chance with?

Adam Rittenberg: Your buddy has a tough decision to make, Austin, especially based on the expansion situation. If you're talking national title, I'd nudge him toward Nebraska or Iowa. Both of those teams will enter the 2010 season ranked in the top 15 and compete for conference championships this fall. Missouri wasn't far from a national title shot in 2007, but it's hard to see the Tigers leapfrogging Texas, Oklahoma or Nebraska in the Big 12. Now if Missouri and Nebraska join the Big Ten, that could change the game a little bit. Iowa and Nebraska are the safe bets. Good luck to him.

---

Brad from Madison, Wis., writes: Adam, given that Penn State 1) doesn't seem to have a solidified starting QB as of yet, 2) their WR corps seems to be held together at the moment with duct tape, and 3) that the O-line gave up a ton of sacks in the spring, do you think there is any real chance that Evan Royster can reach 15+ TDs this season? ...or will opposing defenses, not fearing the pass, merely stack the box to shut down the run enough to keep him in the range of 1200 yards and 12 TDs?

Adam Rittenberg: I disagree with point No. 2, as Penn State should be OK at wide receiver this fall. But generally, you're correct about Penn State's plight on offense. The load definitely falls on Royster, but will he have any running room? Opposing defenses unquestionably will stack the box against Penn State, forcing a young quarterback to be the difference maker. It's up to Royster, who has a very impressive career yards-per-carry average, to find ways to grind out yards. I hope Penn State gives him enough carries to truly be a featured guy and possibly get to 15 touchdowns. He'll need help, and it's why Penn State's offensive line is a more important issue entering the fall than who's starting at quarterback. If the O-line doesn't give the other guys a chance, the offense doesn't have a chance to produce.

The Big Ten spring meetings provided a few clues about the league's expansion study, and a few more could come Sunday, as the league's presidents and chancellors meet in Park Ridge, Ill.

But if you're an expansion junkie -- admit it, most of you are -- you should definitely tune in to what's happening at the Big 12 meetings this week in Kansas City. Colleague David Ubben will be in attendance, providing tons of updates on a conference trying to maintain unity and enhance its profile as the SEC and Big Ten try to distance themselves from the pack.

What should we expect in Kansas City? Well, this league doesn't look like one big happy family right now.

Unlike the Big Ten, which didn't put expansion on its official spring meetings agenda and tried to downplay the topic in Chicago, the Big 12 has made expansion a chief priority/concern this week. The meeting agenda includes a section on "conference membership," and Big 12 commissioner Dan Beebe wants some clear answers and, ideally, a league-wide pledge of loyalty (good luck, Dan).

"The importance of these meetings can’t be overstated," Big 12 commissioner Dan Beebe said. "This is a critical point in the time of the Big 12 and there needs to be some honest discussion about what must happen to solidify the members’ standing in the conference."

Beebe told The Dallas Morning News that his strategy this week consists of "convincing, persuading, cajoling and making recommendations" to Big 12 members to remain with the league. The commish also said the league could discuss increasing the penalties for schools to leave and join other conferences.

"I’m going to put to our membership that they quit deciding how to react and just go forward," Beebe said. "We’re going forward, this plane is going to take off and we’re going to see who’s onboard.”

The Big 12's biggest challenge is simple, especially as it relates to schools like Nebraska and Missouri, often mentioned as potential jumpers to the Big Ten.

The league's power clearly has shifted to the South Division, and some would say it revolves around the University of Texas. And since the league doesn't share revenue equally, some of its members, particularly those in the North Division, feel a bit slighted. From a pure revenue perspective, Nebraska and Missouri would be nuts not to join the Big Ten, where they would not only make more money, but receive even shares with the rest of the league. Can the Big 12 change its ways or form a mutually beneficial partnership with the Pac-10?

I'm very interested to see how officials from Nebraska and Missouri interact with the rest of the Big 12 power brokers. Will Tom Osborne and Beebe square off in The Octagon?

If nothing else, Big 12 meetings should provide some good theater. I'll be watching, and so should you.