You know those insecure jerks at work who shoot down your ideas but take full credit if they can make it seem like their own? Yeah, I think Jim Delany is like that.JoePa is making noise about the Big Ten expanding (and, of course, he's not the only one to feel this way) to twelve teams, thus allowing an easy two divisions and a championship game for football. However, Jim Delany isn't having it.
Delany responded to Paterno's comments Monday, saying that while a league championship game has its benefits, particularly from a marketing perspective, expansion requires much more. "It's not the reason you would expand," Delany told ESPN.com.
No? What is? This is what I don't like... when someone says something's a bad idea and their justification is a bunch of nebulous, impossible-to-define nonsense.
"The issue has come up with our football coaches a couple times -- with the extra week and if we did expand, would we be more competitive?" Delany said. "I would say in some years they might be right. But has it enhanced the competitiveness of the ACC in football? Has it enhanced the competitiveness of the WAC? I don't know."
What the hell do apples have to do with jelly beans? Why go to any bowl games then? If the Big Ten doesn't look strong and is going to lose the majority of their bowl games, maybe we shouldn't do that, either, then, eh Jim?
Delany was supposedly in favor of the men's basketball tournaments being added in 1998.
"I still think the tournament's a good thing, but it wouldn't be the reason why you'd expand a conference, to have a men's basketball tournament," he said. "It's too big a question."
Wait.... it's "too big a question"? For the Big Ten commissioner? If you can't answer it, Jim, it's time to step down and find someone who can.
Another gem later in the article:
"But the point of it is, [expansion is] a very big issue, it's a fundamental issue and it's a back-burner issue right now."
Big. Fundamental. Back burner. Which of these three doesn't belong? What an idiot.
Paterno mentioned Syracuse, Rutgers and Pittsburgh as possible 12th members for the Big Ten. Delany declined to discuss specific teams from other conferences but said a school would need to fit the Big Ten, not just from a marketing perspective, but with its academic vision, athletic success and commitment, among other factors.
Yes, we wouldn't want to disrupt the conference with a team that doesn't have the winning pedigree of Northwestern basketball or Indiana football. What a bunch of complete bullsh-t.
"There's not an obvious move," Delany said. "There might be to some coaches, including coach Paterno, but it's not as obvious to the university presidents and to the athletic directors."
Yes, and therein lies the problem, Jim. There are obvious moves to most people. And then there are the a-holes such as yourself who are in charge. This is about money, plain and simple. If you could have Notre Dame join, you'd sign up in a second. But the prospect of Rutgers or Pittsburgh (not cash cows) joining is just not appealling from a money-grubbing perspective. But we'll hide behind "academic vision, athletic success and commitment."
"There are a lot [of schools] that could take a lot away, but there aren't a lot that could bring so much to make the choice an easy one. You have to have a lot to make something go like this, and it's broader than really a championship game or a basketball tournament."
More vague baloney. It's "broader" than that? Whatever. Sometimes I wonder why I like college football so much. The end of the season is a joke and the leadership is so arrogant, obnoxious and completely willing to lie to everyone's face.... it just makes me so angry.
24 comments:
I really think Pittsburgh makes hte most sense. Good academics, decent football and basketball (though they'll instantly dominated from the Big East), a natural rivalry with Penn State whent hey don't really have a rival.
I am anti-expansion.
I'm not in favor of expansion, if we must I would say Nebraska or Pitt make the most sense, but I could understand Rutgers for the NYC market angle with an eye towards the BTN.
Either Pitt or Mizzu if we cant get nd to go legit. Mizzu brings the natural Illinois rival in the conference and the St Louis market.
Im quite isolationist, would they still call it the big 10 or would there be 2 big 12s? hmmm and Pitt has no reason to leave the Big East, they can win at football, dominate at basketball. ND is lame and are money grubbing hoes. Mizzou looks pretty content to be in the Big 12. Nebraska sucks at everything and I wouldn't want them in the big 10. I say we relegate Northwestern out, who cares about academics.
If we add another school to the Big 10 (11), will we change the name of the conference to the Big 12? Oh, you mean that name is taken? Honestly, I think this is Delany's problem - he doesn't want to spend the time to come up with a new conference name.
I really don't think we'll be able to pull out teams from the Big 12, and would Pitt want to leave the Big East now that they have the mega-basketball conference?
J - I agree with you 100%. If they could get Notre Dame in, they would expand in a heartbeat.
Contraction is always the answer to sports quagmires, in my opinion.
Sorry, Northwestern...but, since that won't happen, Pitt is my vote.
If Delany ever goes and kisses Notre Dame's ass again, I'll personally firebomb his house.
I can't see Pitt happening. They don't really bring enough to the table. Plus, the market is already tapped by PSU, aOSU, and the Steelers.
The best part would be if we took both Missouri and the Big 12 name. ha ha.
Pitt would have been a great addition about 15 years ago when Pitt-Penn State was still an annual game. They'll work now, but yeah, I don't think they're likely to leave, any more than Missouri would leave the Big 12.
The biggest problem is that Delany f---ed around too long and now there's really no good school available, so his out is to say "blah blah not at this time blah blah head up my ass blah blah".
It wouldn't matter if we had playoffs, but I think a conference championship does make a difference now. Basketball, eh. 11 is too many to have a decent non-conference schedule plus a round-robin schedule, 12 doesn't matter that, except that it would increase the occurrence of seasons with a single IU-Purdue game, again because Delany is an idiot. With a competent commissioner, that might not happen.
Across all sports, Missouri seems to be a stronger pick: they've finished above Pitt for at least the last three years in Directors' Cup standings. (Somehow we've managed to finish 35th each of the last three years.)
I agree with those who don't think Mizzou or Pitt would be wise to leave their conferences.... Rutgers, on the other hand, would make perfect sense. They're a Big Ten style team, the right kind of size, the right kind of state university. Location isn't perfect, but it would help for PSU to have a semi-natural rival.
But they bring little money to the table. And therein lies the rub with everything associated with college football.
Pitt would be a natural rival to PSU; which they don't have...and it would help up the demand for the BTN which is helping the schools athletic departments stay in the black during a tough time for some schools.
I find it funny that Northwestern would be the first choice if a contraction ever happened. Much to my chagrin, I would think that Purdue would be the first to be contracted. If compared to the national championships won... I know I know, female lacrosse and softball are pointless sport, but we have 1 women's basketball championship and 1 voted on men's basketball championship. I know I know Purdue Matt 21 Men's Basketball Big Ten Championships and the Women's Bball Team has basically won half of the Big Ten Tournaments. I just think that Northwestern has been as respectable as Purdue has been when it comes to athletics my opinion though... it probably sucks.
I don't want expansion because I don't want a division set-up or a conference title game. Our basketball scheduling is a mess already and adding another school is going to further complicate the home-and-home series we'd ideally like to have to choose a B10 champ.
While we, as a conference, shit the bed in BCS games, we have regularly sent 2 teams to those bowl games. If we had a title game, I'd guess that we would nominally send one at each year. There just isn't going to be many cases where our third place is going to be BCS-quality. I don't know what the conference payout for BCS games is right now, but it's not going to be too far off from the ticket & TV revenue generated by a title game.
Furthermore, would you rather spend December in Indianapolis or Detroit or Chicago or New Year's in Pasadena, New Orleans, Miami, or Arizona?
I'd like to see a reality TV show called "The Commisioner" where the producers throw a dozen Big East, Big 12, and C-USA ADs (or cheerleaders)into a manison and they have to win over Delaney (or a B10 fan who wins a sweepstakes).
Of course there would be a ceremony at the end of each episode where Delaney or the selected fan hands out miniture Floyd of Rosedales to the schools he'd like to keep. I'm pretty sure the BTN has some available programming spots to make this happen.
\Okay, so the concept needs work, but it's a helluva lot more fun than the divorce proceedings that the ACC & Big East went through 5-7 years ago.
Jones- how about this one- Northwestern has still never made an NCAA tournament...or the fact that is the most-recent addition to the conference outside of PSU.
I don't think softball and lacrosse are pointless, but Title IV sports don't generate revenue...and without money-makers, there is no conference.
As I see the discussion thread play out, I start to wonder what is more important: basketball, football, or both? It would be easier to suck in a basketball school, but how does that play out on rivalries? There are not a lot of good football schools out that that we could entice over, are there? I actually think we would be better off shedding a school, but I don't see that happening either.
You're right dowd... NW hasn't made a tourney- prolly never will (this year was impressive for them)... compare the football pedigree... NW had a good run in the mid 90's when they went to 1 Rose Bowl and were pretty darn close to going again compared to our 2 rose bowls (weren't they tied with us in 2000, we got to go since we hadn't gone since 67). It's also Title IX not IV... but roman numerals are just funny. I don't know if you are going to play the academics and athletic situation... then I would assume that NW and Purdue are closer than people think
One more thing... Favre is talking to the Vikings.... as reported by Ed Werder
Nebraska or Notre Dame. Big Red has the national following (IE Ratings) and regional ties. The Domers are an obvious fit but they can go to H*ll....
Dowd, you're right that Northwestern has never been to the NCAA Tournament, but NU is a charter member of the conference. Other than MSU, which joined in the early 1950s, and Penn State, every other member of the Big Ten has been in the league since no later than 1910 or so. No one is going to be contracted anyway.
NU is a charter member, Purdue is the founding member as Purdue president James Smart came up with the idea for the coalition, established in 1896; Iowa and Indiana joined in 1898, U. of Chicago dropped out in 1939 and MSU joined in 1949.
Incidently, in 2002 IU football surpassed the University of Chicago in number of all-time wins, leaving the Maroons with the fewest wins in the conference.
The Big Ten doesn't need to expand or contract.
Indiana is the candidate for contraction if one wanted a Big 10 instead of a Big Ten. However, the better path would be to expand the FB schedule to include ten (10) conference games. Five home and five away with the hosts rotating each year. The championship would be won on the field. No superfluous "title game" necessary.
IU alum and fan here- good post and good comments. I think contraction is the least probable scenario. Even NW brings a certain academic cache to the league, and their past 10+ years of football should be enough to keep them off the chopping block. Purdue and IU are secure members as well, so I say let's put contraction to rest.
ND is the obvious choice- any way they get in is the best way. Beyond the singular athletic tradition, they're the only option that significantly increases the BigTen academic reputation. Plus, the "subway alumni" phenomenon would make a bigger nationwide impact than any other addition.
Beyond that, the only viable options I see are Pitt (decent athletic tradition, OK academics, but little help in marketing), Mizzou (middle-of-the road in athletics, academics and marketing), Rutgers (OK in athletics and academics, but a geographic and market stretch), Louisville (OK athletics, subpar academics, decent market expansion) and WVU (good football, otherwise subpar although a flagship school).
I am not an ardent expansionist. ND is an automatic in, and if Delaney can somehow parley flirtation with another school into signing ND, then he will go down in history. With every other potential addition, I advise caution. The Big Ten loses very little by not signing the second-stringers, but may very well dilute their brand with a bad pick.
Why not go all the way and add Syracuse, Pitt and UWV to form a 14 team super conference.
Post a Comment