…and I’d vote “None of the Above” in your poll, since I think you’re missing the most likely team in a “No That Team from South Bend” scenario:

Missouri.

I break down the reasons why here at Rivalry, Esq. (a great SB Nation Big Ten Blog, by the way), but basically Mizzou fits academically, athletically, and geographically, and could be fit in seamlessly to allow for divisions while maintaining ALL current Big Ten annual rivalries.

The plan? North-South divisions. You play every team from your division (5 games), one cross-divisional protected rival (1 game), and 2 of the other division’s 5 teams on a rotating basis (2 games).

North: Iowa, Minnesota, Wisconsin, Northwestern, Michigan, Michigan State
South: Mizzou, Illinois, Indiana, Purdue, Ohio State, Penn State

Cross-division protected rivalries:
Michigan-OSU
MSU-PSU
Northwestern-Illinois
Iowa-Mizzou
Wisconsin-Indiana
Minnesota-Purdue (these last two could be flipped around).

You’d keep every major trophy game, plus make the Illibuck (Illini-OSU), the Little Brown Jug (Minny-Michigan), and the Purdue Cannon (Purdue-Illinois) all become annual games (they currently rotate off the schedule). Mizzou would allow the Big Ten to expand into St. Louis and Kansas City (pretty decent TV markets), and would get access to the Big Ten’s unmatched academic cooperative, all while Mizzou would get two pretty attractive rivalries (with border states Iowa and Illinois) and could keep another (Kansas) as a non-conference game (which is what they currently do with Illinois).

Plus, competitively, North-South works because it separates/splits up the “traditional” Big Ten powers (Michigan, OSU, and PSU) in a pretty equitable manner (I imagine many would say Michigan got a sweetheart deal, but Wisconsin/Iowa/MSU/Northwestern/Minnesota is harder as the 3-4 team in the North, however you rank them, then the 3-4 out of Purdue/Indiana/Illinois/Mizzou)

Perhaps the Big Ten will take them. I doubt it though. We can try to bribe them, but I’m not sure they will agree even then. And no FSU in the SEC as this person suggested “poaching”! Only the preeminent state university in each state should be allowed, plus Vanderbilt. I’m not sure what to do about Mississippi, but in Alabama that is Auburn and in Florida that is Florida, obviously. Not FS freaking U.

Love to have Pitt or Mizzou. But both, and especially Pitt, aren’t going to leave their conferences. Pitt has the b-ball advantage being in the Big East, and it’s going to be in the mix for a BCS football spot in the Big East. almost every year. No reason for it to move. And having grown up in St. Louis (a long time ago) I just don’t see it leaving its long time conference partners, or its four newer and mostly impressive partners from the B12. As to the rest on your list, they have nothing to offer the B10 as far as I’m concerned. Someday, ND will stop being delusional and come begging. We’ll accept, but only if they beg.

That would round out the state of Iowa and that would give the Big12 a chance to pick up a non AQ team like BYU or TCU.

…whoever joins that conference faces the prospect of having their 11am games called by Pam Ward.

that there are so many comments from Auburn people interested in this topic. Why should you guys care at all?

Cincy is not a good fit for the B10 because of academics and a small stadium (not that an NU fan has any reason to criticize the latter). Several NI blog commenters like Rutgers, but academics and geography make it a poor fit. I may have been wrong about Pitt not being willing to join b/c there are some stats out there saying that it has less sports income than NU, which is last in the B10. That would change if Pitt came on board b/c Pitt would benefit from all the B10 revenue streams. Still, why would Pitt want to jeopardize being in the BCS bowl mix every year as it is in the Big East?

There is no chance the B10 will take any team that is not an equal both athletically and academically, and who also does not detract from the revenue stream. Pitt, Mizzou, ND, or possibly Syracuse. That’s it.

that there are so many comments from Auburn people interested in this topic. Why should you guys care at all?

Precisely what I was wondering. It seems rather off topic, to say the least. I would think this forum would concentrate on Auburn or at least on the SEC since that is Auburn’s conference. I couldn’t tell you who is in the Big Ten if my life depended on it, nor do I give a flying rat’s ass who they add or dump. But then perhaps it has some effect on Auburn which eludes me..

1) There are a few schools that are absolutely NEVER going to be on the list. They include: Louisville, Cincinnati, West Virginia, Iowa State. They just do not compare academically, and while this may seem strange, in the Big Ten, the academics direct these actions FAR more than the athletics. Well, maybe not exactly, but let’s put it this way — the athletics side will not look at any school that DOESN’T meet academic requirements, because they know the University presidents will shoot the idea down (as they should). I mean, the University of Chicago will have a vote in this process (they are an original Big Ten member, and part of the CIC, the academic arm of the Big Ten)….do you think they’d agree to add Cincinnati? It will never happen. I would stake all my money on it.

2) Timing indicates this could be a push for That School in South Bend (TSiSB) — the Big Ten plans to take 12-18 months to explore the process…another 12-18 to negotiate/invite a school…and then it’d take 3 years (based on the Penn State model) to fold the team in (Penn State was added in 1989-90, but didn’t start Big Ten play until 1993). Who’s football contract ends in 2015? You guessed it — TSiSB. Not so coincidentally, I think the Big Ten’s TV contract with ABC/ESPN will be up for renegotiation around then too…..which means the Big Ten could A) lure TSiSB into the fold and then B) use TSiSB plus the Big Ten to set up a bidding war between Fox (which has a minority interest in Big Ten Network), ABC/ESPN (which is basically cornering the market on NCAA football), CBS (has a Big Ten basketball contract that would also be up for renegotiation around the same time) and NBC (ties to TSiSB) for broadcast rights. You’d also expect that TSiSB would increase dramatically the number of cable outlets carrying Big Ten Network (almost surely it would move the network into being carried in places like New York and Boston), meaning even MORE money for all the conference members. We’re talking HUGE money here. PLUS — Big Ten basketball would be pretty amazing as well, and there’s even talk of a Big Ten hockey conference…all of which would make Big Ten Network a more valuable commodity (it also shows wrestling, women’s basketball, soccer, volleyball, softball, baseball, tennis — giving non-revenue sports a chance at national exposure).

3) That being said (thank you, Larry David), I have no confidence whatsoever that TSiSB (and it’s pretentious, moronic boosters) will do the right thing and jump to the Big Ten. Even though it would make everyone more money (TSiSB actually makes LESS than the Big Ten through TV revenues at present), even though they could do it without sacrificing key rivalries (USC, Navy, Boston College and/or Stanford could remain on TSiSB’s non-conference slate), and even though it would drastically cut travel expenses for all of its non-revenue sports (Indiana, Purdue, Northwestern, Michigan, Michigan State, Columbus, and Illinois are all within a couple hours drive of South Bend)….if you think Alabama fans are bad, or Florida fans have a ridiculous sense of entitlement, they pale in comparison to the undeserved hubris of the fans of TSiSB.

4) So who does that leave? Of teams that I’ve heard mentioned, there are:

The Likely (as in they’d maybe accept if we’d offer and might actually get offered by us): Pitt, Mizzou, Rutgers, Syracuse. All pretty good academically, each with their pluses and minuses as athletic partners.

The Unlikely (as in I doubt we’d offer, or I’d doubt they’d ever consider accepting): Texas (why would they leave the Big 12? And, hello — geography?), Kentucky (although maybe not as unlikely as I’d imagine), Nebraska (some grumblings they’d be interested and intriguing, but I’m not seeing it).

The Bizarrely Fascinating: Navy. Seriously, think about it — huge fanbase (Americans, but Naval veterans in particular), contiguous to a Big Ten state (Pennsylvania and Maryland share a border), great academics (if you were to seed bowl teams based on graduation rates, Northwestern and Navy would be in the national championship this year), pretty decent football team/athletics traditionally (recent bowl run, as well as a storied tradition), and no current conference affiliation to have to navigate/disrupt. I seriously doubt this would happen, but — intriguing, nonetheless.

Looking at that list, I don’t see certain schools leaving their conferences, especially due to sports that are not football. This is primarily for basketball schools, and includes Maryland, Louisville, and Syracuse (well the Big East schools with either a basketball tradition or a primary focus on basketball over football.) Maryland is not going to leave the competitiveness of the ACC in hoops for the Big 10. The Big East focused on basketball when they expanded the last time to 16 teams (remember, they have various members which either have FCS football programs such as Georgetown and Villanova, non-football members such as St. Johns, and Notre Dame). Their television contracts are up in a couple of years—if they hold the basketball conference together, they will get a large boost in revenue.

Of course, the Big 10 network could be a draw. But I still don’t see these schools leaving.