Who would you want in the Big Ten (one team only)

Submitted by crg on
Half-sincere apologies for this only moderately relevant thread (working late tonight and bored). Anyway:

If there was an opening for ONE team to join the Big Ten, who would get your vote? This is irrespective of division (maybe Rutgers gives up on football, or the entire University of Iowa decides to skip town to avoid paying Kirk Ferentz another dime - doesn't matter who left or why). Geography/academics can be a factor in your decision, but are not critical. If you care to explain why you chose whichever school, that will make things more interesting (e.g. want to have a road game in Ypsi to take in the scenery).

Go! EDIT: This is not "who should join the Big Ten for real" but more "wouldn't it be great to have this team in the Big Ten - even though there's no way in hell it ever happens"
MGoBoard
Football

SpikeFan2016

September 22nd, 2016 at 12:00 AM ^

If we wanted a California school, UCLA would be my choice. 

 

They actually have a real fan base unlike Stanford and Cal, and they are very strong in non revenue sports across the board (I believe UCLA has the most national championships in all sports combined). 

 

Plus, games in the Rose Bowl are far better than games in either of Cal or Stanford's small stadiums. 

Joined: 04/03/2015

MGoPoints: 6659

Gulogulo37

September 22nd, 2016 at 1:32 AM ^

Agreed. It's not like the extra distance from SF to LA would matter if you're going that far out there.

I hate ND, and that's why I want them in the Big Ten. And yes, they're always overrated, but they'd still help prop up the West. Kick out Rutgers, send a fairly weak team east, and put ND in there. My vote would be for Minny to move east so we could play the jug game every year, but geographically and for competitive balance and for IU's rival, it should be Purdue.

Joined: 03/16/2010

MGoPoints: 28376

SpikeFan2016

September 22nd, 2016 at 10:56 AM ^

Honestly, I would hate putting Notre Dame in the West. 

 

Because that would give them such a huge advantage. They'd win the West 50%+ of the time, whereas if they were in the East they would probably not win the division for a decade plus (or ever) after joining. 

 

 

Also, SF/LA random note, I believe flights from the East may actually be shorter to LA (at the least no difference) and there is no difference in drive time. LA is further South, but San Francisco is further West by a few hundred miles (The California coast goes further and further east the more south you go). 

Joined: 04/03/2015

MGoPoints: 6659

Mr Miggle

September 22nd, 2016 at 12:20 PM ^

If they did, there's no way they would want to be stuck in the West division just because it would be easier to win. That would be a big downgrade to their schedule. MSU has been lobbying to move to the West. They do want that easier schedule. ND would probably take their place in the East.

Joined: 10/07/2010

MGoPoints: 47770

Gulogulo37

September 22nd, 2016 at 1:34 AM ^

Why Virginia?

Oklahoma recruits a lot from Texas, right? They'd have to lose out on that when they're not playing Texas teams routinely. They might go the way of once mighty Nebraska if they moved to the Big Ten, although it likely wouldn't be as bad since they still border Texas.

Joined: 03/16/2010

MGoPoints: 28376

Toasted Yosties

September 21st, 2016 at 11:26 PM ^

Quantum leap back in time and prevent the University of Chicago from dropping football. If they'd have stayed, they'd likely be a powerhouse today. Bring in Notre Dame and you have one helluva conference.

Joined: 06/05/2013

MGoPoints: 9261