That's all I meant. Presumably if Mizzou isn't eventually picked by the Big Ten, it'll be because at least two (maybe three) Big East schools joined instead, which would leave the Big East in bad shape. You make a good point about hoops, though. It depends on Syracuse, although I'm doubting they'd be one of those squads added to the Big Ten.vinsanity wrote:Why is the writing on the wall for the Big East? I know Rutgers and Pitt were mentioned as potential targets for the Big 10, but with 16 teams in basketball and no real football standouts, I don't see why they'd have as much trouble either staying with a 6 team football schedule or getting a basketball school to jump to D-I football to fill in.
But I think Louisville or Cincy would be ok to join the the Big 12, but I think based on population, what remains of the Big 12 might be better suited sliding in to the Big East. KU stays in a power basketball conference, the east coast might offer more tv sets and allow for a Big Ten type channel, like the Pac 10 is trying to do.
If they joined the Big East, you're right back in the situation I'd think they would want to avoid- geographic chicanery. That's why I don't like the Mountain West all that much. It seems ridiculous that Mizzou (or KU or ISU or Baylor) would be traveling to Utah, Nevada, California, and New Mexico as part of their conference schedule (or New York, Connecticut, and Florida). And having that sort of geographic gap would kill interest, I think. It's one thing when you're talking about name recognition (i.e. I could see Mizzou or KSU or whatever fans having interest in Penn State or Ohio State). I'd love to see Mizzou playing those schools regularly. But there's no interest to be gained from seeing Mizzou play BYU or Utah or New Mexico. None. And [expletive], BYU is even good. Throw in travel costs and how it might hurt students in the other sports... I don't know. I don't like it.
