The Wolverine: Covering University of Michigan Football and Sports
Issue link: https://comanpub.uberflip.com/i/575020
FROM OUR READERS cap and a polo shirt that was embroidered with "USC Football Dad, #85." I looked at him in his cardinal shirt and Stanford cap. We both chuckled for a second and he said, "look at us." I nodded, shook his hand and knew exactly what he meant. I sure am glad he's home. CJS85 • With all of the recent problems with Rutgers, it got me thinking about what the ideal Big Ten Conference makeup would be. Taking into account all of the relevant pieces (location, history, academics, strength of athletics, and yes, media markets) what would be your ideal Big Ten? How many teams? If multiple divisions, who makes up each division? Feel free to subtract or add teams, but it has to be realistic (no dropping MSU or adding UCLA). In some ways I was really happy with just the additions of PSU and Nebraska and a 12-team league. That left three and soon to be four crossover divisional games a year, so you really got to play most of the league. I absolutely get the additions of Maryland and Rutgers for money, but Rutgers is turning out to be a disaster. They aren't competitive and now they are just an embarrassment. I really wish we had flipped them for Syracuse or UConn, which would've got- ten the New York City market. The true ideal for me is to drop Rutgers and add Notre Dame. Then you have two divisions. Division 1 is Notre Dame, MSU, Michigan, OSU, Indiana, Purdue and Maryland. Division 2 is Nebraska, PSU, Iowa, Wisconsin, Minnesota, Illinois and Northwestern. But I also don't know if Notre Dame is realistic, so instead just swap out Syracuse for Rutgers and leave things how they are right now. andrewwhfine • I like adding Oklahoma and Kansas to the west. Brings the Oklahoma- Nebraska rivalry back fully and adds competitive balance to the divisions. Illinois could slide to the east to make room for those two in the West. fraybo • The realist in me agrees regarding Notre Dame and then a play for Texas, followed by Oklahoma. I'd have to think that the ability to re-ignite the rivalry with Nebraska, research funds, and to get away from Texas would entice Okla- homa (which is nearly as good as nabbing University of Texas or A&M, with its proximity to the recruiting beds of Texas). But if you can't get Texas or Oklahoma, then I think TCU, Baylor and Texas Tech are not viable. Neither TCU nor Baylor fit the research consortium model and Tech just isn't a B1G school.