Big Ten Expansion

[Scarlet Shack]

Delaney wants UNC and UVA, flagship state universities in large states contiguous to existing B10 states, locking up the east coast for the B10.

The scenario is for VT and NCSt to go to the SEC and UNC and UVA to go to the B10. UNC would not leave the ACC unless there was a threat of the ACC falling apart. And since UNC and NC State are part of the same university, reporting to the same governing board, UNC would not hasten the decline of the ACC without a landing spot for NC State.

So right now Delaney is biding his time until the ACC starts to crack, which he is convinced will eventually happen, as Swofford has made some poor media deals. If the ACC shows cracks, it will probably be prompted by FSU and/or Clemson concerned that they can't keep up financially with the big boys while in the ACC.

Upstream

Correct....This is the most like scanairo that gives the cover for UNC and UVA to go to the big ten

The problem with this scanairo is that relies on

1.) the big12 to either not implode or the major big12 schools to join the pac12....

2.) the SEC to go east and not west (take Texas and Oklahoma)

3.) the sec to go east with nc state and vs tech and not Florida state and Clemson

If the big12 implodes due to the birth of the pac16, the ACC will be very vunderable. There would be a lot of pressure from the state legislators of Florida and South Carolina to protect their major state schools on Florida state and Clemson and get then to the SEC over any Carolina or Virginia schools. The SEC would be in a pickle because they want new markets but the political pressure would be to add FSU and Clemson

Which is part of reason why sec may not move east but move west with Texas and Oklahoma

 

[Arizona Knight]

I don't want to trade Ohio State, Michigan, Michigan State or Penn State for UVA or UNC.

For Rutgers purposes, we want expansion west or status quo. Otherwise welcome to the ACC pod.

 

[candid]

Probably would get:
Kansas and UVA which would strengthen hoops with 1 western and 1 eastern school.

UNC would be a huge get but don't think they will come unless the ACC falls apart.

I don't think the basketball equals enough dollars. Esp Kansas. Yrs ago, a few of the big stadium schools wanted to shed Northwestern. Splitting the gate was great for them and lousy for us. 47000 seats w 60% full vs a l05,000.

 

[candid]

Call me crazy but I wouldn't mind seeing UCONN in the Big Ten.

I think they were becoming a pretty hated rival...and that's what rivalries are all about.

Plus, it gives us another conference win the majority of the times we play them.

No to Uconn, Mass, Temple, etc. We'll look like a strong MAC.

 

[wheezer]

I don't want to trade Ohio State, Michigan, Michigan State or Penn State for UVA or UNC.

For Rutgers purposes, we want expansion west or status quo. Otherwise welcome to the ACC pod.

------

I have been singing that song every time expansion threads come up, but nobody listens and fans still want North CArolina and Virginia added....I just don't get it

Our schedule would immediately suck

 

[Scarlet Shack]

Arizona knight

Totally agree....I would love to leave the big ten right how it is

 

[PSU_Nut]

Would love to see this B1G

4 Pods for a 20 team conference. Play 9 game schedule. Two pods pair up to for division for 2 years.

B1G East:
Penn State
Rutgers
Maryland
Virginia
North Carolina

B1G Central
Michigan
Ohio State
MSU
Indiana
Purdue

B1G Great Lakes
Notre Dame
Northwestern
Illinois
Wisconsin
Minnesota

B1G West
Iowa
Nebraska
Kansas
Oklahoma
Texas

 

[RUinPinehurst]

Virginia and UNC make a lot of sense. Good tv markets, growing populations and state schools.with beautiful.campuses and good academics. UNC basketball.is a.dominant program. I would imagine football would improve for both being in the B1G and would further open up recruiting for the B1G in Virginia and North Carolina

"UNC basketball.is a.dominant program."

Been following the "news" over the last few years? UNC is not worthy of the B1G. Your view may change this spring after the NCAA vacates UNCs wins over the past 23 years and their three Championships. They've "dominated" in BB by cheating, systematically.

 

[RUinPinehurst]

The B1G is all about FB. VA Tech and GA Tech are the likely candidates of any in the ACC. No way the North Cacalacky schools abandon the mothership. Just not going to happen. Now, Swoffy will gladly accept all B1G schools into HIS conference. Delaney can be his wingman.

 

[ehenningsen]

Would love to see this B1G

4 Pods for a 20 team conference. Play 9 game schedule. Two pods pair up to for division for 2 years.

B1G East:
Penn State
Rutgers
Maryland
Virginia
North Carolina

B1G Central
Michigan
Ohio State
MSU
Indiana
Purdue

B1G Great Lakes
Notre Dame
Northwestern
Illinois
Wisconsin
Minnesota

B1G West
Iowa
Nebraska
Kansas
Oklahoma
Texas

I'M ALL 'N'

 

[Knight_Light]

The B1G offered them alongside Virginia, Duke and UNC after they took Maryland and Rutgers.....

Stop....Big Ten never ever considered adding 4 more teams (18 total) for their conf. None of the above ever received an invite to join the Big Ten.

 

[BoogieKnight]

Would love to see this B1G

4 Pods for a 20 team conference. Play 9 game schedule. Two pods pair up to for division for 2 years.

B1G East:
Penn State
Rutgers
Maryland
Virginia
North Carolina

B1G Central
Michigan
Ohio State
MSU
Indiana
Purdue

B1G Great Lakes
Notre Dame
Northwestern
Illinois
Wisconsin
Minnesota

B1G West
Iowa
Nebraska
Kansas
Oklahoma
Texas

If anything like this ever played out, ND would want to be aligned with Texas, Oklahoma and Nebraska. So swap them and Iowa. This also keeps the two middle pods as the original Big Ten schools.

 

[NickyNewark51]

If anything like this ever played out, ND would want to be aligned with Texas, Oklahoma and Nebraska. So swap them and Iowa. This also keeps the two middle pods as the original Big Ten schools.

Except ND would be lucky to win 5 games a yr playing this kind of conference schedule and with millions of the old guard ethnic Irish calling themselves American like the Scots-Irish their mythical status that's already losing juice would disappear rapidly.

 

[Knight_Light]

If anything like this ever played out, ND would want to be aligned with Texas, Oklahoma and Nebraska.

Disagree...Much of ND's alumni base is on the East Coast, especially the Northeast Coast....and places like Oklahoma and Nebraska don't have the concentration of ND alumni like other states.

That's one of the main reasons why ND joined the ACC for all non-football sports (basically an East Coast Conf) while having a 5 game deal to play ACC football teams each year.

 

[pawildcat]

Connecticut and Iowa State

Split into 4 pods

Iowa, Iowa State, Minnesota, Nebraska

Michigan, MSU, Northwestern, Wisconsin

Illinois, Indiana, Ohio State, Purdue

Connecticut, Maryland, Penn State, Rutgers

Scheduling: play the other three teams in your pod each year + half of each other pod, rotating every two years. This way every team will play through the whole conference every four years.

Also, you need to add hockey.

Big TEN hockey:

Connecticut
Illinois (new program)
Michigan
Michigan State
Minnesota
North Dakota (affiliate member, see JHU)
Ohio State
Penn State
Rutgers (new program)
Wisconsin

As a Northwestern fan, any AD that put us into a football pod with the two Michigans and Wisconsin would be fired immediately. Are you kidding me?

 

[Abro1975]

Will never see 'pods', that would just add an additional layer to the conference championship game. As Tuberville said, it will eventually be 4 conferences of 16-20 teams broken into 2 divisions.

 

[Nosoj]

Will never see 'pods', that would just add an additional layer to the conference championship game. As Tuberville said, it will eventually be 4 conferences of 16-20 teams broken into 2 divisions.

I'm curious as to how this will work and where potentially as many as 15 additional P5 programs are coming from.

 

[Upstream]

Will never see 'pods', that would just add an additional layer to the conference championship game.

I don't think you understand the purpose of pods. Pods don't add a layer to the conference championship game. Pods are essentially just a scheduling convenience to allow you to have "divisions" that change each year. The conference championship game is still between the first place team in each "division".

With a 12-team league, you have 2 divisions of 6 teams. The divisions are static, because with an 8-game conference schedule, you still see every team in the other division on average of once every two years.

With a 14-team league, you can still have static divisions of 7 teams, but you really need to go to a 9-game schedule to see every team in the other division on average of once every 2.33 years.

But if you go to a 16-team league with static divisions of 8 teams, even with a 9-game schedule, you only see teams in the other division on average of once every once every 4 years, and that means you would only get schools from the other division at home once every 8 years. That is because your 9-game home schedule always has the same 7 teams from your division, only allowing you to play 2 teams from the other division.

But by going to "pods" you don't have static divisions, so you play a different 7 teams from your "division" each year. That allows you to rotate through the entire league much faster.

If you have "pods" of 4 teams, you play 3 schools every year, and you see the 12 teams from outside your pod on average of once every 2 years (the same as you see them in a 12-team league with 2 static divisions and an 8-game conference schedule).

But you don't need to have "pods" of 4 teams. You could go to 2-team pods (which makes scheduling a little more complicated ... but if you have a computer, it is not that big of a deal), and you see the other 14 teams in the league on average of once every 1.75 years. Or you could even go to one-team pods (which is really just scrambling the divisions every year), and then you would see every team in the conference on average of once every 1.66 years, and play them at home on average on once every 3.33 years.


But regardless of how you structure it, the pods are just a scheduling device to allow you to see all the teams in the league more often.

 

[RUkhoury]

Would love to see this B1G

4 Pods for a 20 team conference. Play 9 game schedule. Two pods pair up to for division for 2 years.

B1G East:
Penn State
Rutgers
Maryland
Virginia
North Carolina

B1G Central
Michigan
Ohio State
MSU
Indiana
Purdue

B1G Great Lakes
Notre Dame
Northwestern
Illinois
Wisconsin
Minnesota

B1G West
Iowa
Nebraska
Kansas
Oklahoma
Texas

How could you want the Big East to look like that? Its a terrible Division.....I would like the Big to add Cincinnati. Hate them.

 

[jason21psu]

I don't think you understand the purpose of pods. Pods don't add a layer to the conference championship game. Pods are essentially just a scheduling convenience to allow you to have "divisions" that change each year. The conference championship game is still between the first place team in each "division".

With a 12-team league, you have 2 divisions of 6 teams. The divisions are static, because with an 8-game conference schedule, you still see every team in the other division on average of once every two years.

With a 14-team league, you can still have static divisions of 7 teams, but you really need to go to a 9-game schedule to see every team in the other division on average of once every 2.33 years.

But if you go to a 16-team league with static divisions of 8 teams, even with a 9-game schedule, you only see teams in the other division on average of once every once every 4 years, and that means you would only get schools from the other division at home once every 8 years. That is because your 9-game home schedule always has the same 7 teams from your division, only allowing you to play 2 teams from the other division.

But by going to "pods" you don't have static divisions, so you play a different 7 teams from your "division" each year. That allows you to rotate through the entire league much faster.

If you have "pods" of 4 teams, you play 3 schools every year, and you see the 12 teams from outside your pod on average of once every 2 years (the same as you see them in a 12-team league with 2 static divisions and an 8-game conference schedule).

But you don't need to have "pods" of 4 teams. You could go to 2-team pods (which makes scheduling a little more complicated ... but if you have a computer, it is not that big of a deal), and you see the other 14 teams in the league on average of once every 1.75 years. Or you could even go to one-team pods (which is really just scrambling the divisions every year), and then you would see every team in the conference on average of once every 1.66 years, and play them at home on average on once every 3.33 years.


But regardless of how you structure it, the pods are just a scheduling device to allow you to see all the teams in the league more often.

Once the deregalation of the conference championship game (CCG) comes into play you wont need divisions or pods. You'll just have a rotating schedule and the conference will take the 2 best teams for the CCG. That's why the ACC is also for the B12 proposal. I laid out a schedule for a deregulated 14 team B1G where you'd play 4 permanent crossovers, a group of 3 teams that you'd play 2 out of every three years, and a group of 6 teams that you play 3 of of every six. You'd never go more than 2 years without playing a team.

If you want to see what I came up with, here is the link to my spreadsheet: http://1drv.ms/1Lfahzo

 

[Knight_Light]

Once the deregalation of the conference championship game (CCG) comes into play you wont need divisions or pods.

Big Ten won't vote for it.

SEC won't vote for it.

Pac-12 won't vote for it.

It was only the ACC, trying to appease the Big 12 (so Big 12 won't raid their conf) was giving in to the idea that not only would conf not need a minimum of 12 teams to host a championship game, but the conf could select any 2 teams for the game (which is what ACC wants...as they don't want to be stuck with Divisional winners...as they drool for a Clemson vs FSU Championship Game every year, teams stuck in the same division).

One of the stupid committees that recommended this to past were clueless...as it won't pass full membership.

 

[derleider]

Big Ten won't vote for it.

SEC won't vote for it.

Pac-12 won't vote for it.

It was only the ACC, trying to appease the Big 12 (so Big 12 won't raid their conf) was giving in to the idea that not only would conf not need a minimum of 12 teams to host a championship game, but the conf could select any 2 teams for the game (which is what ACC wants...as they don't want to be stuck with Divisional winners...as they drool for a Clemson vs FSU Championship Game every year, teams stuck in the same division).

One of the stupid committees that recommended this to past were clueless...as it won't pass full membership.

What will be interesing is if the other conferences would vote for a verison of the proposal that merely got rid o the divisional requirements (i.e. if you have at least 12 teams and therefore cant feasibly have everyone play everyone else, then you can use any method to decide who gets into the conference championship).

 

[jason21psu]

Big Ten won't vote for it.

SEC won't vote for it.

Pac-12 won't vote for it.

It was only the ACC, trying to appease the Big 12 (so Big 12 won't raid their conf) was giving in to the idea that not only would conf not need a minimum of 12 teams to host a championship game, but the conf could select any 2 teams for the game (which is what ACC wants...as they don't want to be stuck with Divisional winners...as they drool for a Clemson vs FSU Championship Game every year, teams stuck in the same division).

One of the stupid committees that recommended this to past were clueless...as it won't pass full membership.

I see what your saying but eventually I think it gets done. I believe Notre Dame as gets a vote too and they are likely on the the B12/ACC side.

 

[PatrickRU92]

Kansas brings Zero... well .1 since they are good in basketball...
no recruiting grounds, no TV sets, no football... in other words nothing...

Virginia and North Carolina are my choices. they bring a growing population, recruits, and for those who care, Basketball...

Only way I take Kansas is if it brings Texas, but in that case I would prefer Oklahoma. Norte Dame only if it came in with Virginia or North Carolina.

I would be willing to bet that Kansas owns the Kansas City market--more so than Mizzou.

 

[derleider]

I would be willing to bet that Kansas owns the Kansas City market--more so than Mizzou.

http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2014/10/03/upshot/ncaa-football-map.html#10,38.672,-94.742

Its split along states lines basically. The Missouri side I believe has more people than the Kansas side, so I think that in the end Missouri would be the bigger team between the two. Also, Kansas splits with KSU on the Kansas side, Missouri is alone on its side (although all three split with Nebraska as well.)

 

[Scarlet_Scourge]

oh no, the pod people have invaded! This always happens when you let these types of threads go too long:

P.S. 16 schools. 9 conference games. 3 crossovers = you play every team on the other division at least once every 3 years. No need for pods.

 

[PatrickRU92]

http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2014/10/03/upshot/ncaa-football-map.html#10,38.672,-94.742

Its split along states lines basically. The Missouri side I believe has more people than the Kansas side, so I think that in the end Missouri would be the bigger team between the two. Also, Kansas splits with KSU on the Kansas side, Missouri is alone on its side (although all three split with Nebraska as well.)

Possibly. I think from a proximity standpoint Lawrence is far closer to KC FWIW. And I think that KU basketball and KC are very closely tied--more so than Mizzou but then again KU is a top 5 program. Mizzou has been historically pretty good but no nowhere near KU.

 

[NickyNewark51]

http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2014/10/03/upshot/ncaa-football-map.html#10,38.672,-94.742

Its split along states lines basically. The Missouri side I believe has more people than the Kansas side, so I think that in the end Missouri would be the bigger team between the two. Also, Kansas splits with KSU on the Kansas side, Missouri is alone on its side (although all three split with Nebraska as well.)

I don't buy that interactive map....checked us and Cuse out...it make's Cuse FB look like a powerhouse FB fanbase in our own Greater NY demo and us a ninty pound weakling fanbase...even on LI UConn has more fans than us?? I thought the NYT did a written piece proclaiming us with the most CFB following in the city area?

 

[Scarlet_Scourge]

You are all missing the point of Kansas basketball, unlike those other programs, they are not just regional but a national brand. They are to basketball what UND is to football.

Their Men's Basketball program alone made $33 million last year. Just basketball by itself. Only Louisville made more and we all know that they count a lot of extra stuff as men's basketball.

Just like you wouldn't add UND for just Indiana. You don't add Kansas to add the state of Kansas or Kansas City, you add them to add ALL of the states that are die hard fans.

 

[Scarlet Shack]

Patrick and derleider:

Kansas City market is a lot more popular with KU than Missou

Missou, conversely, owns the St Louis market by a much wider margin than UIllinois....

 

[derleider]

Scourge - redo your math. If you are playing the other 7 teams in your eight team division once a year, that leaves two games for the other division - so you would rotate through the other division in four years. That might be acceptable over pods. Anything above that and without pods, you really cease to have division at all - you have conferences with a crossover game and a share championship and TV network.

Nicky - yes - the map has flaws. Its just the best we have other than this - http://commoncensus.org/sports_map.php?sport=5 (which is wht the other NY Times analysis was based on)- which has similar flaws - but also shows the same sharp divide at the Kansas/Missouri border.

Patrick - KC is closer - and thats why Missouri doesnt dominate the way it does in the Illinois portions of the Saint Louis market (since Missouri is about as far away as Champaign, and Saint Louis, like Kansas City, in Missouri.)

Shack - you say that - but neither of the maps above, combined with the knowledge of the distribution of people in the KC market (more in Missouri) really backs that up. For basketball, certainly I would expect Kansas to be more popular - they are a national name. But nothing on their news websites indicates that the area is dominated by Kansas FB - and as we know - FB is everything these days.

oh no, the pod people have invaded! This always happens when you let these types of threads go too long:

P.S. 16 schools. 9 conference games. 3 crossovers = you play every team on the other division at least once every 3 years. No need for pods.

 

[nick614]

If you expand from 14 it has to be because the benefits are so great that you can't afford not to do so. For that to happen, I think you look at schools you never thought would leave their current position. Adding schools just to add and only break even in distribution isn't worth it.

That's why I think if you look at some schools that are commonly mentioned aren't actually good candidates...

Virginia: Probably has to include VT. Doesn't include a huge demographic that isn't covered by UMD and/or other B1G alums. Notably UM,OSU & PSU alums in the DMV area.
Kansas: Same reasons as Virginia, would be a "solid" choice but not something that adds more value than it takes up. It would adding just to add.
Oklahoma: Same reasons as Kansas and Virginia, but could be considered if it was helping to reel in Texas in a huge transformation of college sports.
UConn: It was Uconn OR Rutgers not Uconn AND Rutgers. We already picked the best one.
Cincy: It is just a big city, commuter school. Brings absolutely nothing to the table. Ohio State & ND are more popular than UC in Cincy.

Anyways, my point is unless you are adding major blue bloods to the pot then it is not worth expanding. Those schools mentioned above would at best add no net loss value to the pot & doesn't increase it in any way.

16 Teams: +Notre Dame +North Carolina
18 Teams: +Notre Dame +North Carolina +Georgia +Florida
20 Teams: +Notre Dame +North Carolina +Georgia +Florida +Oklahoma +Texas

 

[albanyknight]

I am blown away everytime someone responds like this, being that the OP's question was not who WILL BE # 15 and #16 but actually was who WOULD YOU LIKE to see added. Big difference there. My suggestions were Iowa State and Connecticut because that is who I WOULD LIKE TO SEE.

I've been around long enough to know they aren't candidates because they won't bring the money required for expansion. BUT, being a midwesterner/northerner, and a B1G fan, I would prefer more midwestern/northern public research schools (like ISU and UConn) and not southern schools like UVA, UNC, Vandy, Missouri, Georgia Tech, Texas, Oklahoma and Kansas.

Wow. Someone finally comprehended my initial question. Thank you.

Who I still want is Notre Dame and Virginia. Who I don't want is Texas, Oklahoma, NC or UConn. All of these schools for one reason or another would dilute the Big Ten brand. UVA and Notre Dame would enhance it.

 

[FlintTown]

Would love to see this B1G

4 Pods for a 20 team conference. Play 9 game schedule. Two pods pair up to for division for 2 years.

B1G East:
Penn State
Rutgers
Maryland
Virginia
North Carolina

B1G Central
Michigan
Ohio State
MSU
Indiana
Purdue

B1G Great Lakes
Notre Dame
Northwestern
Illinois
Wisconsin
Minnesota

B1G West
Iowa
Nebraska
Kansas
Oklahoma
Texas

Love it. That's exactly what I predicted would happen a few years ago. Another crazy alternative for a 24-team league would be to go to two divisions of East and West, and then pair teams up in each division.

West
UNL
Iowa

Kansas
Missouri

Minnesota
Wisconsin

Northwestern
Illinois

Indiana
Purdue

Oklahoma
Texas

East
Maryland
Penn State

MSU
Notre Dame

Ohio State
Michigan

Rutgers
Syracuse

Virginia
North Carolina

Boston College
UCONN

Each team would play their rival plus 4 additional pairs in the same division to get to 9 conference games. So a team would miss one pair of teams in their division every season. The problem is that it would essentially be two separate conferences, as the East would never play the West. The problem is remedied by the fact that only Purdue/ND (which they no longer play anyway) would be the only missed game. Iowa, Wisconsin, Minnesota and Northwestern would bitch for a while, but they'd get over it with Oklahoma and Texas now on the schedule.

 

[sherrane]

Big Ten won't vote for it.

SEC won't vote for it.

Pac-12 won't vote for it.

It was only the ACC, trying to appease the Big 12 (so Big 12 won't raid their conf) was giving in to the idea that not only would conf not need a minimum of 12 teams to host a championship game, but the conf could select any 2 teams for the game (which is what ACC wants...as they don't want to be stuck with Divisional winners...as they drool for a Clemson vs FSU Championship Game every year, teams stuck in the same division).

One of the stupid committees that recommended this to past were clueless...as it won't pass full membership.

That isn't exactly true. The ACC wrote the petition so they could have their two highest ranked teams in the ACC Championship game. In 2012 it was Florida State vs 6-6 Georgia Tech and Florida State vs 10-2 Duke (who was ranked #20 due to being, well, Duke). Clemson, on the other hand, was ranked 14th and 13th in those two years and would have been a more highly anticipated and watched game. The Big 12 didn't sign onto the petition until about 6 months after it was submitted. Texas doesn't want to expand at this point and the Big 12 seems to do whatever Texas wants.

 

[Scarlet_Scourge]

Scourge - redo your math. If you are playing the other 7 teams in your eight team division once a year, that leaves two games for the other division - so you would rotate through the other division in four years. That might be acceptable over pods. Anything above that and without pods, you really cease to have division at all - you have conferences with a crossover game and a share championship and TV network.

Yes, you are right it would take 4 years not three but that is perfect and proves there are no need for pods.

So as a player, if you play for at least 4 years then you get to play against the other 15 schools during that time.

I think that 16 teams is the limit to how big you can have a conference for football and make it still feel like a conference. Once you get past 16 schools for football then it all starts to fall apart, IMHO.

As far as adding ACC schools, I do not like the ACC at all. It would be a nightmare if Rutgers joined the Big Ten to be stuck with a bunch of ACC schools.

I much rather have Rutgers play as many Big Ten schools as possible. So I rather stay at 14 schools forever or as long as possible unless a true powerhouse wants to join aka UND or Texas or Oklahoma ... that's it, there is no one else is a big enough name and no school has a bigger market than us anyway. If they wanted to join and that would be unlikely, then I am sure that the Big Ten could work something out and they could use the 8 division 9 conference game model, no need for pods.

 

[Upstream]

Wow. Someone finally comprehended my initial question. Thank you.

No offense, but your original question is somewhat boring. Who you want pretty much comes down to everyone's subjective opinion. There is really nothing to discuss. It is like asking what is your favorite color. Your's is green and mine is yellow. That's nice, but so what.

Who do you think will be the next teams in the Big Ten is a much more interesting question, because you can discuss the importance of different factors (market, quality of play, geography, fanbase), how each team fits those factors, and what it would take for different teams to switch conferences.

 

[Nosoj]

If you expand from 14 it has to be because the benefits are so great that you can't afford not to do so. For that to happen, I think you look at schools you never thought would leave their current position. Adding schools just to add and only break even in distribution isn't worth it.

That's why I think if you look at some schools that are commonly mentioned aren't actually good candidates...

Virginia: Probably has to include VT. Doesn't include a huge demographic that isn't covered by UMD and/or other B1G alums. Notably UM,OSU & PSU alums in the DMV area.
Kansas: Same reasons as Virginia, would be a "solid" choice but not something that adds more value than it takes up. It would adding just to add.
Oklahoma: Same reasons as Kansas and Virginia, but could be considered if it was helping to reel in Texas in a huge transformation of college sports.
UConn: It was Uconn OR Rutgers not Uconn AND Rutgers. We already picked the best one.
Cincy: It is just a big city, commuter school. Brings absolutely nothing to the table. Ohio State & ND are more popular than UC in Cincy.

Anyways, my point is unless you are adding major blue bloods to the pot then it is not worth expanding. Those schools mentioned above would at best add no net loss value to the pot & doesn't increase it in any way.

16 Teams: +Notre Dame +North Carolina
18 Teams: +Notre Dame +North Carolina +Georgia +Florida
20 Teams: +Notre Dame +North Carolina +Georgia +Florida +Oklahoma +Texas

Oklahoma may have a small home market, but you can't get any bluer blood. Texas has more overall wins, but Oklahoma has more National Titles, more conference titles, more consensus All-Americans, more Heisman winners, more Bowl appearances, more BCS appearances...

Oklahoma would immediately be one of the biggest brands in the B1G, arguably the biggest. The downside is academics, but they're relatively equal to Nebraska. If you can get Oklahoma, you take Oklahoma.

 

[Upstream]

Yes, you are right it would take 4 years not three but that is perfect and proves there are no need for pods.

[... ]

I much rather have Rutgers play as many Big Ten schools as possible.

I don't understand your logic. Without pods, in a 16-team conference, you play every school once every 4 years. With pods you see every team once every 2 years. How does that prove pods aren't needed. Since you want to play other Big Ten schools as often as possible, why wouldn't you prefer the system in which you see them twice as often.

 

[albanyknight]

No offense, but your original question is somewhat boring. Who you want pretty much comes down to everyone's subjective opinion. There is really nothing to discuss. It is like asking what is your favorite color. Your's is green and mine is yellow. That's nice, but so what.

Who do you think will be the next teams in the Big Ten is a much more interesting question, because you can discuss the importance of different factors (market, quality of play, geography, fanbase), how each team fits those factors, and what it would take for different teams to switch conferences.

No offense taken. But I would point out that you can discuss all those things you mentioned still in the same context of who you would like to see in the Big Ten. The two are not mutually exclusive. I gave my REASONS why I would like to see UVA and Notre Dame join the Big Ten. Frankly, what is really boring not to mention repetitive are the repeated reasons why schools like UConn and Iowa State will not be in the Big Ten.