Rumor: Pittsburgh to Join Big Ten
by Jonathan Franz on Jan 31, 2010 5:25 PM CST
in All
Email
Print
Just two days after The New York Times published a report on the ripple effects of Big Ten expansion on the college football landscape, cannon-ball sized speculation is abounding all over the internet that the University of Pittsburgh will become the conference's twelfth member. According to the Kansas City Star (relying on Bleacherreport.com) "Pittsburgh athletic department officials held closed door meetings with all of the University's student athletes last week about the potential move."
Several Pitt student athletes allegedly let the cat out of the bag on Twitter, then recanted -- deleting the bread crumbs almost immediately after posting.
So what are we to make of all this?
Well first, there's the extreme unlikelihood that the Big Ten Council of Presidents would act so quickly, little more than a month into an evaluation process tabbed to take a year to a year and a half. Still, it is possible that COP had Pittsburgh -- and its complimentary academic pedigree -- in mind from the start. With its top tier national rank (56th) and Association of American Universities affiliation, Pitt is a fair congener on paper. Additionally, some commentators have suggested that a quick-strike could be designed to meet scheduling deadlines to get a Big Ten Championship Game in place by 2012.
Still, for a conference that has only added three members in the past century, an impulse buy is more than out of character. Plus, it's not clear how the addition of Pitt by itself furthers conference exposure. (Penn State already brings Pittsburgh -- the 23rd largest television audience in the United States -- to the table).
The nail in the coffin of this rumor for me, is that the Big East appears totally in the dark. The Big Ten made it more than clear when it announced plans to explore expansion that it would contact a prospective target's conference before approaching an individual school. Even if the Big East is playing it cool, it seems far fetched that the Big Ten would have had the time to work through what OSU President Gordon Gee calls a "quiet kabuki dance" with a number of suitors at the gate.
I'll go so far as to say that if Pittsburgh has -- however improbably -- gotten the nod, it's a clear signal that the conference doesn't plan to limit expansion to a single program. Rather, if Pittsburgh does join, I think it's the beginning of a push for fourteen teams, or what one special commentator called "The Big Tent Conference."
Stay tuned for more details.
28 comments
|
0 recs |
Do you like this story?
Comments
If this is not the start of a three team swap coming into the BIG TEN
than i will be extremely disappointed with this move.
I want it to take in Texas, Nebraska and Oklahoma from the Big 12
I want it to get Syracuse and Pittsburgh form the Big East confrence and form a 16 team supper confrence.
by Delaware Boiler on Jan 31, 2010 6:22 PM CST reply actions
The kind of conference respectible enough to take home for dinner.
BCS Evolution -- Punctuating the Equilibrium - twitter
this may make sense in it being early.
One would hope that a short list was already available before the announcement of possible exspansion was made official. This certtainly could be the first domino in a multi team expansion. A if pitt then syracuse then etc….
Also a poster over at BSD did bring an interesting article to the table about the “mini” market of Pittsburgh for TV sports. Sadly, I cannot find the link but I do have this one about the nfl tv share. There may or may not be a correlation to cfb but who knows.
https://www.sportsbusinessdaily.com/article/108576
"A good plan violently executed now is better than a perfect plan executed next week. "
George S Patton
Well
Pittsburgh is typically a great sports town. They’re very enthusiastic about the Steelers and when it comes to hockey, the Pens might be the best supported hockey team in the US. But when it comes to Pitt football, nobody cares. Financially speaking, they make zero sense. I don’t get this at all.
NittanyWhiteOut.com. Arguably the second best Penn State blog I know of.
I love Pitt
I like the idea immensely; I’ll take a 12 team or a 14 team conference.
And I think although Pitt football doesn’t bring a tremendous cash flow in by themselves, it’s not about that. It’s about getting a serviceable program that completes a 12 team conf…which will in turn bring loads of cash.
I disagree
Its not simply about bringing a “serviceable” program, just so we can have 12 teams for 12 teams sake. If the big 11 wanted just to have 12 teams for the hell of it, it would have been done already, perhaps awhile ago. 12 teams does not automatically mean more cash. It only means more cash if the new team brings the average income up. More teams = more hands in the pot.
The big ten is only going to do this if it will provide a hefty boost to the wallet, not just a small one. That means, a) if you’re only adding one team, its either ND or UT or someone of that caliber or b) you’re expanding into a super conference of 14 or 16 or c) something yet unthought of, but earth shattering.
Now, if this comes to pass and Pitt jumps to the big11 and that is it, I won’t have any big problems with it. Its not the worst possible move or anything like that. Sure, it gives PSU an old rivalry game back, but who cares about that ourtside PA? I just feel like this expansion issue is a way to really make a statement for the big ten. Adding Pitt is just slightly above meh, where as busting the doors down and snagging Pitt, ND, and Texas would just turn the world on it’s head. I don’t expect the latter to happen, but it would be sweet.
Black Shoes. Basic Blues. No Name. All Game.
"Everyone has a plan, until they get punched in the mouth."
Don't get greedy
I think Pitt does exactly what the Big Ten wants: Adds a 12th team, solidifies PA market, fits academic standards, and adds good basketball and football programs. People who think that the Big Ten is going to penetrate the East coast media markets by adding a storied program like Rutgers are dreaming. I think a lot teams would be opposed to the idea of a super conference especially for football. That would lead to reduced chances of programs like OSU, and Texas reaching the BCS title game. For that reason I don’t think Texas will join. And also like you said “More teams = more hands in the pot.” I don’t see why the Big Ten needs to turn the world upside down. Just get a twelfth team and that’s that.
I’m excited for it and I think it would be choice for the Big Ten. Just have to figure out the whole naming thing.
I will be surprised if this is true
All of the financial info I’ve seen is against it.
which isn’t to say as a Pitt fan I’m unhappy about it.
The Big Ten is a great opportunity; I’m just surprised.
I made some calls...
I’m a Pitt student. I called a contact of mine with the athletic department; they said that the Athletic Director did meet with all of the athletes, and many athletes thought the meeting would be about a conference change, but that was not the purpose of the meeting. I dunno if that’s what they were supposed to tell me or what, but my contact says no conference announcement was made to Pitt’s student athletes.
by SlingStone on Jan 31, 2010 11:16 PM CST reply actions 1 recs
A Seinfeld quotation is in order:
“Is she special, special, or ‘cut up your meat’ special?”
Thanks for the shout out.
As to Pitt as Team #12, I’m really only ok with that if we get teams #13 and #14, as well. The point of expansion is balance (which Pitt brings), new media markets (nope), and improved national profile (much as I love The Wanstache, nope the sequel). Now, you bring in a Missouri and a Nebraska, too, and suddenly…
Courting mediocrity since 1964.
by lakeeriemonstar on Jan 31, 2010 11:34 PM CST reply actions
You're really trusting a source from Bleacherreport?
Oy
Nobody cares about your fantasy baseball team
Negative 10
journamalism points to the Kansas City Star for that reason.
http://www.rivalryesq.com/
"Bama Hawkeye, you know, the Iowa blogger who actually uses reason and analysis." - Hawkeye State
From the Pitt AD:
Now hear this: rumors on Internet message boards should be read for amusement purposes only, and not consumed as responsible journalism.
Source: Twitter, the bastion of responsible journalism.
I got more rhymes than Wade Lookingbill's got dunks
Isn't that
what a coach says while he packs his bag for his new job?
http://www.rivalryesq.com/
"Bama Hawkeye, you know, the Iowa blogger who actually uses reason and analysis." - Hawkeye State
by Bama Hawkeye on Feb 1, 2010 10:05 AM CST up reply actions
Yes, lets add more teams
So we play teams even less than we already do.
I mean why would a team want a chance to play every team in its conference every year.
Keep it at eleven, play every team once, keep sending two teams to the BCS, and have a true conference champion when it is all said and done. Its won on the field by playing everybody, not almost getting gifted into a conference title like Nebraska (the lost to Iowa State) last season.
I know I am in the minority on this, or maybe even the only one advocating this but what is the drawback? Less cream puffs?
Its a funny story actually.
you realize that we already don't play everyone every year?
there are currently 10 Big 10 opponents for every Big 10 team (since you don’t play yourself), and only 8 conference games. 2 opponents per team are “protected” and played every year, but the other 8 rotate off the schedule for 2 years at a time.
by The JuggerNitt on Feb 1, 2010 11:53 AM CST up reply actions
Oh really, thanks for clarifying
I think it sucks as it is now. I want the new system and you don’t have to add a team, that not nearly enough people will be happy with. I hated when the Hawks and OSU were both 8-0 and didn’t get to play each other.
I also think they should play everyone twice in basketball, not that I need to see Iowa lose a couple more times each year.
Its a funny story actually.
by Wad on Feb 1, 2010 1:50 PM CST up reply actions
I endorse Pitt
Much ado has been made about this rumor on Meech boards. We have needed a 12th team for some time now to make a conference championship, and I applaud the Big Ten for taking the initiative to solve a very obvious problem and not get tangled up in a lot of tradition stuff. Here’s my take.
The teams that would satisfy the requirements to be included in the Big Ten (in this order, I believe: athletic excellence, academic excellence, expansion of Big Ten media reach) basically are as follows: Pitt, Rutgers, Syracuse and Mizzou. Of the four, I believe only two satisfy all four requirements, and those are Pitt and Mizzou. Syracuse and Rutgers may expand the Big Ten media footprint to the east coast (though some feel that their efficacy in doing so would be minimal), but I feel they both would compromise the overall athletic integrity of the conference (minus ‘Cuse hoops). We don’t need more bottom feeders, we need competition.
Mizzou and Pitt both offer attractive benefits. For one, Mizzou would seem like the perfect compliment to the conference as a solid Midwestern institution. By including Mizzou in Columbia, MO, this would serve to include the St. Louis market (only several hours away from Chicago, the heart of the midwest). St. Louis is midwest. The problem that i see with Mizzou is that if i had to rank them in terms of where they might stand athletically in the Big Ten, I’d rank them around the middle of the bottom half. Acadmically, also, Mizzou is a good institution, but not a great one. The benefits don’t outweigh the costs, in my opinion. I don’t think they could contribute enough.
Pitt, on the other hand, I think is the best choice. Academically, they are far and away superior to Mizzou. Athletically, they are very competitive in the two most major $$-drawing sports (Basketball, Football), currently finishing near the top of the Big East (on and off) for several years now (esp in hoops). Though the inclusion of Pitt would not effectively expand the Big Ten media footprint with the inclusion of Pittsburgh, it shores up the region nicely. It would plug a hole in our media market which would result in the Big Ten effectively covering all athletically competitive schools from Iowa to PA.
I think competition and academics take precedence in choosing a school, and I think Pitt is the answer.
Well, Pitt doesn't meet your 4th criterion
while it does “shore up the region” we already have media reach there, so no expansion would occur. Academically they are fine, but you are kidding yourself if you think they have athletic excellence in football. You can’t just look at last year and say, “well they were ranked in the top 10 for a brief period, so they must be good”. Pitt has gone to a bowl game 9 out of the past 20 years. That doesn’t scream “excellence” to me, especially playing in the Big East. They would be like a Purdue or Minnesota team in the Big 10, usually a bottom feeder with an ok season thrown in here or there, but likely no BCS bids.
It just doesn’t make sense to split our bowl and TV revenue with them, when more often than not their contribution to that pot is $0 (half the time no bowl $ and never any TV $)
by The JuggerNitt on Feb 1, 2010 11:59 AM CST up reply actions
Good points, all of them
while their ultra-recent success in football does not exculpate a decade (or two) of mediocrity, historically Pitt makes the cut, having had a lot of success in the 70’s and 80’s.
Pitt is a very tradition-rich and historically successful program, having turned out the likes of Dan Marino, Tony Dorsett and Mike Ditka (all current/future HOF’s). The Big Ten is all about tradition, so it fits that category as well.
Success also begets success. No matter how good Pitt gets, it’s still in the Big East and it plays Big East teams. Playing in the Big Ten, a step up from the Big East, may not make an instant impact with Pitt, but taking the long view, athletes from the east coast who wish to play in the Big Ten will now have more choices than Penn State (there was an article about PSU and CT recruiting in the times this weekend, FWIW: http://www.nytimes.com/2010/01/31/sports/ncaafootball/31stamford.html). A tradition-rich program on the upswing with access to the fertile east coast recruiting grounds that plays in the Big Ten would be a good sell, I think. In ten to 15 years, Pitt may be less of a bottom feeder and more of a bigtime threat.
One more thing
re:historically rich. Pitt claims 9 national championships (4 unanimous, 5 shared), that’s more than anybody in the Big Ten not named Michigan (11 national titles). Ohio State claims 7 total.
Key Word = Claims.
Alabama claims like, 21 or something like that.
Hell, If PSU wanted to they could just as legitimately as Pitt or anyone else claim anywhere from 6 to 10 of them.
National championships mean nothing to me personally. Especially before the AP poll started (1936) and before helmets and facemasks were instituted. Going undefeated or having like 1 loss while beating a bunch of teams means way more.
From my perspective, JoePa has 5 undefeated seasons, but only 2 NCs(one of which came in a season with a loss) How and why should his other undefeated seasons like say, 1994 be held in less regard than say the 1-loss 1982 team that won the title? Because of stupid bowl arrangements and lack of a formal crowning by the NCAA? Even now, Auburn got screwed, and teams can lose their conf. champ game and still play for it? Its all bogus. Especially back when there was even less inter-playing.
Black Shoes. Basic Blues. No Name. All Game.
"Everyone has a plan, until they get punched in the mouth."
They "won" most of those national titles before World War 2.
It’s not exactly a big deal among recruits and fans, you know?
"I AM A DIEHARD REDSKINS FAN, CAPS, LEAFS, AND I LOVE WATCHING TENNIS. SO WHATS THE BIG DEAL"
by ReadingRambler on Feb 3, 2010 11:12 AM CST up reply actions
Comments For This Post Are Closed
Secondary Sidebar
User Tools
Related FanPosts on Off Tackle Empire
FanPosts
Community blog posts and discussion.
Certain photos copyright © 2012 by Associated Press or Getty Images. Any commercial use or distribution without the express written consent of Associated Press and Getty Images is strictly prohibited.
