Twelfth Team To Big Ten Idea?
Everyone’s saying that the conference needs a 12th team so that there can be a championship game (sure doesn’t make the ACC relavent, but whatever). However, I would like to see another team added to the Big Ten. Before scoffing, laughing, and guffawing at my idea, please think it over, and think about the team I’m thinking of.
That team is Temple.
I know your knee-jerk reaction is to laugh that off with a “Temple? Are you serious? They suck”. But the point is, no, they do not suck. They USED TO suck. Look at how much Al Golden has transformed this long moribound program who had been irrelavent since the 1950s, despite a short resurgance in the late 70s/early 80s. Let’s compare Al Golden’s Owls teams.
2006: 1-11, absolutely dreadful team. They show up in Happy Valley just hoping not to be humiliated and lose 47-0 (and it wasn’t that close), despite Penn State’s offensive weaknesses that year. Would have been a below-par I-AA team that year, believe it or not.
2007: 4-8, marked improvement but still awful. Penn State comes to their house but Temple still rolls over for Penn State pretty much, losing 31-0 despite Penn State’s struggles that year. Won three MAC games, but lost 42-7 to Buffalo. However, shows signs of life this year.
2008: 5-7, much better than their record, huge improvement, lost many close games, Temple puts up a fight but still loses 45-3 to one of the best Penn State teams in recent memory. Lost on a last second Hail Mary to Buffalo, but did paste Army 35-7. Biggest change is that Temple plays like a program that can win, not as a program trying not to lose.
2009: 5-2 right now, way better than last year. Finally able to finish off opponents (except Villanova), loses 31-6 to a good Penn State team but for the first time, plays like they want to pull an upset, not just avoid humiliation. Notable wins include a 37-13 pasting of Buffalo, a not as close as the score 24-19 win over Ball State where BSU scored on the game’s final play, a 40-24 win over a decent Toledo team, and Temple right now is 4-0 and undefeated in the MAC.
Also, before you laugh off the idea, think about this. Cincinatti, the top team in the Big East right now, joined the conference in 2005 after years of being a low level team, and had just emerged from Conference USA. UConn was actually a I-AA team before joining the Big East. Temple is still a Pennsylvania school, retaining the original geography of the conference, but a team from Eastern Pennsylvania, while Penn State is from west-central PA, and to be honest, western PA, including State College, is culturally midwestern. Temple is the truest east coast team that could be added (they even call their offense the East Coast Offense, which is a variation on the West Coast Offense), increasing the Big Ten market to New England, New York, and New Jersey. And don’t forget that with a Big Ten budget, Temple could recruit more blue chip players. You see what Al Golden is doing with what he has. Imagine if he had a team of mostly three and four star recruits, with a few blue chippers and a few two-star recruits.
Villanova wouldn’t work because even though I forsee them becoming an FBS team soon enough, they’ll probably join the MAC or Big East, and they already are a Big East basketball team. Why would they switch to the Big Ten when they can enjoy being in an all basketball conference? Temple doesn’t have that problem, being in the MAC in football and in the Atlantic Ten in basketball and all other sports (Penn State was also in the Atlantic Ten in most sports for much of their run as a football independant. Contrary to popular belief, Penn State was NEVER in the Big East, although they did try to join and were denied).
Geography-wise, a game to Temple wouldn’t be much more travel overall than if Nebraska, Missouri, or some other Big XII team joined, and would be better than adding Syracuse or Pitt, teams who are content with being in the Big East (especially Syracuse, a basketball school). Temple wouldn’t have much problem moving into the Big Ten, although the first couple years may be bumpy. But then again, Cincinatti, UConn, and South Florida has a great early start in the conference. Cincy and USF went 7-5 each in their inagural year in 2005, and would have done even better if not for playing Penn State.
But really, I doubt a trip to Philly to play a game in the Linc would be much worse for Iowa and Minnesota than a game at Beaver Stadium.
Before you post a knee-jerk mocking response, actually think about the logic behind this. Also, we can’t deny Penn State’s history with the Owls, the two teams have played each other on and off since 1931, mostly on since 1975. Although Penn State hasn’t lost to Temple since 1941, both teams still love this series.
joseph_d on Fri, 18th Dec 2009 8:57 pm
do you expect us to read this book? it is bad idead and it is not the big ten because 11 teams are in int, so it should be called the big 11! but maybe notred dame should get in
Matthew V on Fri, 18th Dec 2009 9:07 pm
While you do bring up some excellent points as to why Temple should join the Big 10, you’ve overlooked their past association with another BCS conference in the Big East, a conference they were associated with from 1998 (first year of the BCS) to 2004, when they became the first university to be associated with a BCS conference to be “demoted” from the BCS. I would think if Temple were to rejoin the BCS it would be with a conference they are familiar with. Geographically speaking Temple does make a good fit for the Big 10, but so do Central Michigan (32-16 in your time frame for Temple with 2 MAC titles and a bowl win) and Toledo (who is 17-26 in your time frame for Temple but if you look at their record from 2000-2005 they were 45-16 with 2 MAC titles and 2 bowl wins), but I do agree that if another team is added to the Big 10 it will be from a non-BCS conference.
In my personal opinion I think the BCS should limit conferences to a 10 team limit, as of right now the Big East and Pac-10 are the only conferences who can claim a true conference champion as every conference as to play each other. The Big 10, ACC, SEC and Big 12 can’t make such a claim as all teams don’t play each other and here are some examples as to why that’s a bad idea:
SEC: In 2002 Georgia (8-1, 4-1 in their division in conference play counting title game) beats Arkansas (5-4, 4-1 in their division in conference play counting title game) in the title game, while Florida had a better conference record (6-2, 5-0 in their division) than Arkansas but did not play Arkansas that year and couldn’t play Georgia for the conference title because they’re in the same division and had a worse overall conference record than Georgia even though they had beat Georgia previously in the season, but yet Tennessee and Auburn play twice in the 2004 season.
ACC: 2005 Florida State 6-3, 3-2 in division in conference play (counting the title game) beats Virginia Tech 7-2, 4-1 in division in conference play (counting title game), but Miami who’s 6-2 in conference play, 4-1 in their division (with a win over Va Tech who’s in their division) gets left out of the title game, why?
Big 10: 2002 Iowa and Ohio State are co-Big 10 champs but they don’t play each other, if there was only 10 teams in the league then they could have.
Big 12: We all know what happened last year with Texas, Texas Tech and Oklahoma, enough said.
I could go on and on but what’s the point right now the only thing the conference title game does is give two schools one more game against a ranked team to help the winner in the BCS rankings, it I think it’s bs, but a restriction on the number of teams to 10, have them all play 9 conference games and the winner of the conference is the real winner, but this is just my opinion
As for Notre Dame well call me a loyalist but I think Notre Dame should remain an independent it’s just tradition, and if they were to join a conference it would make more sense if they joined the Big East, the conference they are affiliated with in every other sport.
Daniel on Fri, 18th Dec 2009 9:30 pm
Temple will join the Big Ten once i grow my seventh head, which will emerge out of my left elbow
Peace and Love on Fri, 18th Dec 2009 9:35 pm
If the Big Ten is going to add a team to their conference it will likely be a big name that adds big money to the conference and at the same time adds high quality academics.
Penn State was the last college added and it was added because it was independent and because of its academics.
Right now Notre Dame is the most likely choice and the Big Ten has had talks with Notre Dame about joining once or twice before.
Some others that have been put up as names are:
Rutgers University
Syracuse University
University of Missouri
University of Nebraska
University of Pittsburgh
West Virginia University
Iowa State University
Of those, I think some good candidates would be:
Missouri
Nebraska
Pittsburgh
Iowa State
One of the Big Ten rules is that if an addition is made, it has to be in neighboring Big Ten territory. All of these teams fit that pretty well.
Of those universities, I think Iowa State would be my choice. They have a good football team and a good basketball team. And they are a small enough school that being asked into the Big Ten would probably mean a good deal to them. And Iowa State already has a good rivalry going on with Iowa. And adding a good rivalry that already exhists is a good idea I think.
devilish on Fri, 18th Dec 2009 9:54 pm
The Big 10 has suffered in national reputation over the past few years. The Buckeyes have become what USC is to the Pac-10 and they have successfully become National Championship fodder for whoever plays them making people believe that the Big 10 should never ever get another bid.
I like the idea of a Big 10 Championship game. However, I think adding Notre Dame (rather than Temple) would help in three ways :
1. Allows for the Big 10 Championship game to be feasible.
2. Brings more notoriety to a conference that has taken a reputation hit.
3. Provocative matchups offer more revenue opportunities for the conference.
Location wise, South Bend seems like it’s right in the heart of Big 10 Country. While Temple is rebounding and history is there, the addition of the Owls doesn’t make a big enough impact (imho of course). I think they’d end up being a Vandy…just another team to smack around to soften schedules.
FANatic on Fri, 18th Dec 2009 10:34 pm
On the surface it is an interesting concept but there is more to adding a team to a conference than football. Temple is not a prudent choice because of nonrevenue sports needing to travel to Philly on a regular basis. It is tough enough to get to State College but adding Philly to that mix would be a worse fit.
If you think about a twelve team to a Big Midwest conference your best bets would be adding Notre Dame (won’t happen because of their private network TV contract) and Iowa State coming over from Big XII.
The geographical numbers work better this way. Geography is sinking Conference USA and did in the 16 school concept of the WAC a few years back.
david w on Fri, 18th Dec 2009 11:34 pm
I have been asking why Notre Dame was not included in the Big 11 from day 1. The rogue university seems to have its own set of NCAA rules.
Without going on a rant I would like to include ND in the Big 10. They give the conference more legitimacy (no offense Temple). The ‘big’ question then is what do you call the conference?
Concerning the conference championships: all 6 BCS conferences should have to play that game. It is a good game to have but to have only 3 play is not right. Wisconsin did the Big 10 a favor a couple of years ago when they lost a stupid game. Ohio State played for the title (undefeated) and Wisconsin finished with the one dumb loss. Had they been undefeated the 2 schools would not have played in the regular season (another problem if you don’t have a championship) and who is your Big 10 winner?