NCAA On Life Support After Landmark Ruling

Just a few months after the National Labor Relations Board administrator’s shocking decision in favor of Northwestern football players seeking recognition as employees, yet another bombshell legal decision hit the world of college athletics Friday afternoon when Judge Claudia Wilken released her 99-page decision in O’Bannon v NCAA. Ruling in favor of the plaintiffs and finding the NCAA’s prohibition on compensation being paid to student-athletes for the use of their names, images, and likenesses, Wilken found the NCAA’s current model of “amateur” athletics to constitute a violation of § 1 of the Sherman Antitrust Act and thus placing the future of that model in serious doubt.

Although Wilken somewhat inexplicably ruled that the NCAA may still cap compensation while student-athletes remain enrolled at the full cost of attendance and may even cap post-graduate compensation at $5,000 per year of participation, the finding of an antitrust violation is real precedent that could have far reaching implications beyond the issue of compensation for the use of student athlete names, images, and likenesses.

When the NCAA decided nearly a year ago to fight on after both Electronic Arts and the Collegiate Licensing Company, co-defendants in the antitrust suit brought by a class of plaintiffs led by former UCLA basketball star Ed O’Bannon, it was effectively gambling the future of its entire organizational model on the outcome of the case. With Wilken’s unequivocal finding that the NCAA is a cartel operating in violation of the Sherman Antitrust Act, it appears that gamble has been lost.

For now.

There is no doubt the NCAA will appeal Judge Wilken’s decision and her entry of a permanent injunction which effectively eliminates the capping of scholarships at “full grant-in-aid” where that cap falls short of the full cost of attendance. The Ninth Circuit, which has in the past shown sympathy for the NCAA model in contravention of its usual disdain for institutional blight, will have the next say on the matter and how they decide will, at least in terms of legal precedent, be of far great importance than what Judge Wilken provided last week.

The history of antitrust cases involving collegiate and professional sports does not bode terribly well for the plaintiffs. Although the Supreme Court’s landmark decision in American Needle marks a departure from the trend, the normal response at the appellate level is to find in favor of the status quo. District court judges like to make a statement and those at the appellate level love nothing more than to shoot that statement down as fast as possible.

But the real value of this case lies not in the remedy ordered, a smogasborg of pro-plaintiff and pro-NCAA conclusions Judge Wilken slid into the end of her opinion, but rather in the holding of the case: the NCAA is a cartel operating without adequate justification to render its price-fixing scheme immune from Sherman Act violations. With regard to that issue, Judge Wilken unequivocally sided with the O’Bannon plaintiffs and has now left the NCAA in a position where it will need to make major changes to avoid finding itself facing similar antitrust suits on more fronts than it could possibly handle.

Because they are usually fact-dependent, remedies, which are often a function of the requests made by plaintiffs who may be reluctant to ask for too much, do not provide tremendous value in terms of setting precedent.

On the other hand, the holding of this case does set valuable precedent that goes beyond the narrow scope of the fact pattern at hand. No longer will the NCAA be able to hide behind its claims of upholding a tradition of amateurism or of protecting the opportunities available to student-athletes in every sport to participate at the highest level. Judge Wilken has clearly rejected those claims and should her ruling be upheld on appeal, that would set just about as damaging a precedent as the NCAA could possibly face, perhaps damaging enough to force the NCAA to become a mere shell of itself.

The bottom line is that the O’Bannon plaintiffs have finally broken through the glass door and have set the stage for massive changes in the landscape of intercollegiate athletics, particularly at the high-major level. Although the remedies Judge Wilken ordered may lack a solid logical basis and may not cure all of the issues facing student athletes as this moment in term, her ruling that the NCAA operates in violation of the Sherman Act by preventing schools from compensating student-athletes for the use of their names, images, and likenesses is real precedent that the NCAA will now have to find a way to work around as it faces the inevitable flood of litigation that follows a landmark ruling like this one.

Both because this ruling will inevitably be appealed and because its scope is narrowed by the facts at issue, this is merely the beginning. But between this bombshell ruling and the traction CAPA is having in its petition on behalf of Northwestern football players, it is clear that we are entering a major period of change in the world of intercollegiate athletics, one that the NCAA and its compatriots will have to enter with an open mind in order to survive.

The Big Ten's Bowl Problem

New Year, Old Story: For The Big Ten, Its Time to Put Up or Shut Up

Now in its 100^th year, the Rose Bowl has always been an annual rite of passage. The TV gold panorama shots of the packed stadium set against the backdrop of the San Gabriel mountains is as much a signal of the new year as is the dropping of the diamond ball in Times Square. But while the Rose Bowl has always been a part of the New Year’s tradition, a new tradition has come to the forefront over the past several years: Big Ten football ineptitude.

Once again this year, January 1^st was not a good date for those trying to show that Midwesterners can still play football at a high level. With losses by Iowa and Wisconsin today following earlier defeats of Minnesota and Michigan, the conference dropped to just 2-4 for the 2013-2014 bowl season and a staggering 49-65 in bowl games during the BCS era (1998 to present).

While this ugly record in the silly season has done as much to bolster the reputation of the vaunted SEC as it has to slowly diminish the stature of the once-powerful Big Ten, it does have its fair share of legitimate and often overlooked reasons.

First and foremost, the Big Ten had traditionally ended its regular season up to two weeks prior to its bowl opponents. Although this has largely been eliminated since the conference added a championship game during the 2011 season, it did play a part in much of the dark era of Big Ten bowl performance. Though obviously both teams face a layoff prior to the “postseason”, there is a big difference between three weeks off the field and five weeks away from the game. Certainly this falls more in the category of “excuse” than legitimate explanation, but it does carry some weight when you look at the flat starts and uncharacteristically sloppy play that has marred the performances of the conference’s best teams under the national spotlight.

But perhaps more importantly, bowl games are played in the south and southwest rather than the Big Ten’s home turf. Moreover, the games played in the south are played against teams from the south (SEC) and those played out west are generally played against teams from the west (Pac-12). The Big Ten’s struggles in the Rose Bowl against Pac-12 teams playing in their own backyard aren't all that new. Even after Michigan State snapped a three-game slide (all by Wisconsin) by defeating Stanford, the conference has won just 4 of the 11 BCS-era match ups and just 13 of the 40 matchups played since 1970.

The Pac-12 dominance could be the result of having better teams and certainly during the periods of USC dominance, that is very much the case. However, the one-sided nature of the modern Rose Bowl is also in part a function of the fact that Big Ten teams are not built to play in the LA basin. Furthermore, the Pac-12 representative traditionally faces a very minimal travel burden and doesn’t have to make the climate adjustment that for many of us from the great white north makes performance at a high level virtually impossible to pack for the trip.

The same phenomenon largely holds true with regards to the Big Ten’s ineptitude against SEC foes in the “lesser” bowl games that lead off the New Year’s Day slate. Teams designed to handle the cold weather of November Big Ten games are forced to play in the heat and humidity of Florida or in the indoor track that is the Louisiana Superdome (almost always, coincidentally, against Louisiana State) and have to do so against teams built for precisely those conditions in which the games are played.

Don’t pretend that a game between Ohio State and LSU in the Superdome is a “neutral site game” and don’t tell me that Michigan can play against Florida on an “even playing field” in Orlando. Bowl games in the south are home games for the SEC representative and to call them anything else is to ignore reality.

If you consider the bowl games the road games they really are, the Big Ten’s record becomes a whole lot more respectable. While a .430 winning percentage is far from outstanding, consider that during the 2010-2011 season road teams in games between BCS conference teams (and ND) won just 32.73% of the time. Though the bowl environment certainly dampens the advantage for the home SEC (and to a large extent, Pac-12 as well) teams, the familiarity with conditions most commonly faced on the field and the desire of these teams, particularly those from the SEC, of protecting the “home turf” of their region gives rise to an advantage significant enough to explain a good deal of the basis for the Big Ten’s bowl game struggles.

Could the SEC be far superior to the Big Ten at this point in time? Sure, of course they could. Is it legitimate to argue that they are the best conference in the country? Certainly.

But are the results in their bowl games against Big Ten opponents a valid piece of evidence to support these contentions? ABSOLUTELY NOT.

Remember, the Big Ten struggling in bowl games is nothing new. Though the folks at the worldwide leader seem to act as if the last decade has seen the SEC surge ahead of the rest of the country in terms of football prowess (particularly in relation to the Big Ten), the statistics simply don’t back that assertion. And yes, I know the only stat that matters in the eyes of many is national titles and the SEC has won all of them.

But where are those “National Titles” decided? Here is a clue: It isn’t Indianapolis, Detroit, Chicago, Minneapolis, or any number of viable midwestern sites.

Much of this is sentiment I have expressed before and it is sentiment I will continue to believe in despite the fact many so-called experts conveniently choose to ignore it.

However, I am done using it as an excuse because it is no one else’s fault by the Big Ten conference itself. Time and time again, the Big Ten has allowed itself to be the sacrificial lamb (albeit one that is very well-paid) for two conference in the Pac-12 and SEC that are gradually becoming the class of the college football landscape, taking hold of a mantle the Big Ten itself once held very securely.

If the bowl games were what they should be, exhibitions to reward teams for a successful season and to provide TV networks (well, just 1 network now) with a massive audience to get the year started, then I would have no problem with the conference continuing to put itself in a difficult position and would be fine persisting in my crusade to eliminate the bowl season from consideration in the never-ending debate concerning college football superiority both on the conference and individual team level.

But with the end of the BCS era (thank the lord) and the beginning of the college football “playoff” next season, it is clear that the bowl games can never again be mere exhibitions. Regardless of how illogical it may be, the bowl games not only will be deciding the national champions of the current season, but also the contenders for the title the following year.

While this is a phenomenon that began when the BCS was formed in 1998 (and was bolstered by the changes made to the BCS formula in 2006, conveniently the very season that marked the beginning of the SEC “streak”), it is one that the Big Ten had a perfectly good opportunity to stop when it negotiated for the new four-team playoff system that will begin with next season.

Though undoubtedly other parties were involved, the negotiations for a new system to replace the BCS at the end of its contract in 2014 were essentially a battle between the interests of the on-field “power” that is the SEC and the off-field power that is the Big Ten (Have you seen the Pac-12 network available in a New York City hotel?).

For many of the reasons I have always stated, the SEC wanted to ensure that the entire “playoff” would be played in the confines of Dixie, with the “concession” being made that they could occasionally move into the “neutral” southwest when the available sites south of the Mason-Dixon were all gobbled up.

On the other side of the table, the Big Ten stood ready with a proposal that would, if you believe in the theory of vast SEC superiority, have benefitted the “best conference in America” had it been adopted. The Big Ten’s plan was to reward the higher seeds in the four-team playoff by having the semifinals played in the home stadiums of the #1 and #2 teams. This would allow the rest of the bowl system to stay in tact, with the semifinal winners moving into the national title game and the losers filling back into the “BCS Bowl” slots from which they were removed when they were selected for the playoff.

As ESPN’s own Big Ten blogger Brian Bennett said back in 2012 when the proposal was unveiled, “Playing semifinal games at home sites instead of using the bowls makes so much sense that I'm actually surprised that top college football officials would consider it.” From the Big Ten’s perspective, it was a way to allow for the possibility that a title-contender from the Midwest could make its way to the finale by taking advantage of playing in the cold comforts of home while also preserving the Rose Bowl as a likely Big Ten-Pac 12 matchup on January 1.

The SEC couldn’t get a playoff approved without the Big Ten’s support and since this proposal gave teams around the country a chance to host a spotlight game on campus, it would seem like this would be the plan toward which the support of athletic directors around the country would flow.

But the SEC knew what the Big Ten held so dear and took advantage of it: The Rose Bowl.

Even though it has been a contractual part of the event for only the last half of its century-long existence, the Big Ten conference and commissioner Jim Delany are obsessed with the Rose Bowl. Ironically, however, the conference’s devotion to protecting the matchup with a Pac-12 foe in Pasadena on New Year’s Day may have not only resulting in the caving in to SEC demands for a more southerly playoff track, but also in the end of the very matchup the conference was so intent on protecting.

As a result of the conference’s inability to use its leverage to set up a system that removed the inherent bias against them, the SEC has ensured that it will continue to dominate the college football landscape for years to come, provided only that its members can continue their tradition of protecting home turf like every college football team in America has a tendency of doing.

Delany and company not only failed to win approval of their proposal for semifinals hosted by the higher seeds, they didn’t even reach a compromise. With just an ounce of hard-nosed bargaining, the Big Ten’s leadership could have at the very least won support for a system in which the entire playoff was conducted in a completely neutral set of venues, either influenced by the geography of that year’s higher seeds or otherwise varied from year-to-year to ensure a wide geographic spread of neutral venues.

Instead, they simply caved and allowed the SEC to win approval for 100% of its proposed system and to enable the status quo of patently unfair venues to continue into this new era of college football.

If anything, the new system is more geographically biased toward the schools of the old south than the BCS was even in its heyday. Of the six bowls that will be used to fill the semifinal games, the bowls still being used for no reason other than to continue the less-than-ethical relationship between high-level AD and presidents, conference commissioners, and bowl representatives charged with safeguarding the traditions (ahem, financial coffers) of their “not-for-profit” events conducted with 200+ unpaid entertainers, four of them are located in the deep south, two in the southwest, and ZERO in the northeast, mid-atlantic, or Midwest.

Since the Super Bowl can be held in Indianapolis and even outdoors in New Jersey, why does a NATIONAL college football semifinal game have to be played nowhere but the southern half of our vast nation?

Had the southern bias been, as it largely is now, confined simply to the title game itself, my anger at the “peace for our time” tactics of our conference negotiators would be somewhat restrained. But now instead of just one opportunity to be blasted by a full speed train of home field advantage, the new system provides two opportunities for Big Ten teams to find themselves at a loss against “SEC Speed”.

I know the title game venues beyond 2017 are TBA, but with a three-year lineup of Dallas, Glendale, and Tampa, does anyone really think that Indy, Detroit, or Minneapolis would have a prayer?

As much as I wish I could place the blame for this extension of the acutely unfair status quo on the evil overlords of the SEC, I cannot. This one falls squarely on the Big Ten and its inability to assert itself in the boardroom any better than it has of late on the field.

Agreeing to the playoff system the Big Ten agreed to is akin to allowing Tiger Woods to reach Jack Nicklaus’ 18 majors by playing every US Open and PGA Championship at either Torrey Pines, Bay Hill, or Firestone (if you aren’t a golf fan, check out his record at those venues).

So having lost its opportunity to even the playing field at any point prior to the 2025 season, it might just be time for the conference to wave the white flag and admit defeat. Not defeat from the standpoint of agreeing that its brand of football is inferior to that played in the land of Dixie but rather that its brand is, by design, unable to compete in the consensus venues used to decide the “national champion” and if that is the case, continuing to try fitting a square peg into a round hole is a useless effort.

As long as collegiate football titles are decided in Dallas, New Orleans, Atlanta, Tampa, Miami, Glendale, and even Pasadena, the SEC will have a perpetual advantage and the Big Ten a never-ending hill to climb.

The opportunity to rectify the situation unfortunately passed with the long-term playoff agreement put in place last year. At this point, the only solution for the Big Ten is to cut off the opportunities they present to conferences like the SEC, Pac-12, and Big 12 to bolster their reputations at the Big Ten’s expense in patently unfair matchups.

Maybe you do that by reinstituting the “One bowl team” rule that the Big Ten had in place until the 1970s. But since the schools would never agree to that because of the irrational belief in the financial power of the bowl appearance, perhaps the conference could instead simply abandon the traditional matchups and find more favorable contracts that would improve the overall record. Doing so wouldn’t even require stooping down to the “Group of Five” level but would instead simply happen by virtue of playing teams from the west in bowls held in the south and visa versa.

Is it wishful thinking? Of course. But at this point I am sick and tired of making excuses for the annual ineptitude put on display by a conference that time after time squanders the opportunities it has to place itself on a more level playing field nationally.

At this point it is clear the money is too great and too important to conference leadership for them to place it at risk in pursuit of an agreement for crowning a “national champion” and for setting the national landscape of college football that isnt inherently tilted toward the gulf of Mexico (with an honorable mention going to the Pacific Ocean) both physically and consequentially.

Instead, I will just turn the calendar forward come December 31 and remember what the New Year should mean in the college sports landscape: the beginning of the march to madness. After all, its a lot easier on the psyche to concentrate on basketball, where subjective interpretation is irrelevant because in the end the titles are won on the playing surface. Even in this new “playoff” system the conferences have devised, football simply cannot say the same.

Delany Leading Big Ten Down Wrong Road and Its Time For A Change

As he nears his 25^th year as commissioner of the Big Ten Conference, Jim Delany has put himself in a position of immense power in the world of intercollegiate athletics. But while Delany is responsible for bringing millions of dollars to the Big Ten member institutions through innovations such as the Bowl Championship Series, the Big Ten Network, and NCAA Men’s Basketball Tournament coverage, he is becoming more and more a threat to the very organization whose interests he is charged with representing on the national stage.

Since Delay became Big Ten commissioner in 1989, he has presided over the addition of Penn State University (1990), the University of Nebraska (2011), and now the University of Maryland and Rutgers University, both scheduled to join the conference for the 2014-2015 academic year. More recently, Delany has presided over the addition of Johns Hopkins University as an affiliate member for men’s lacrosse, bringing the Jays’ storied program into the fold as the Big Ten begins sponsoring competition in lacrosse starting in 2015.

But while all of this expansion has brought a treasure chest of fortune to the member institutions, it has done so while threatening the very brand upon which so much of the Big Ten’s value is built.

The conference’s own webpage describes how “even in its infancy, the conference established itself as the preeminent collection of institutions in the nation, where the pursuit of academic excellence prevailed as the definitive goal of all Big Ten universities.”

In short, for all the athletic prowess of Big Ten institutions, academics supposedly remain at the center of the conference’s mission.

Supposedly.

I say that because with the addition of Nebraska to bring the membership up to 12 in order to allow for a conference championship game in football, Delany signaled once and for all that the “pursuit of academic excellence” would no longer take precedence over the simultaneous pursuit of television contracts and football fortunes. Money talks and despite what Delany and company may say, everything else walks.

Clearly the Big Ten has decided that money is more important than reputation but even with that conceded, one has to wonder whether the conference can even compete in the football arms race it has decided to fight against the vaunted SEC.

Sure the SEC has inflicted some serious wounds on the Big Ten powers-that-be in its decade of drubbing on the gridiron, but they might in fact inflict the most damage as those powers continue to erode the prestige of the Big Ten conference in a futile response to try and compete for the title of nation’s best college football conference.

While the numbers actually point toward the Big 12 as the best football conference in the nation, it is considered fact at this point that the SEC holds the crown. Now winners of the last 7 BCS title games (carefully worded), the Southeastern Conference has a local talent pool, fan support, and popular reputation that would make it difficult for any conference of any size to effectively challenge its reign on the gridiron.

Yet that is exactly what Delany is attempting to do. Forgetting the basic mission of the Big Ten and the attributes that make the conference great (and different from the SEC), Delany has sought out any and all major football programs to join what has started to become a mass of teams and schools that leave much to be desired both on and off the playing field.

First there is Nebraska. While certainly a fine Midwestern institution and a flagship for the State of Nebraska, UN-L is not on the same level academically as the traditional Big Ten institution. Even the most ardent supporter of Nebraska would have to concede that the university is not on par with the likes of Michigan and Northwestern, traditional Big Ten institutions that hold permanent spots amongst the world’s leading research universities.

While Nebraska was a member of the AAU (American Association of Universities- a group of leading US and Canadian research institutions) at the time of the announcement they were moving into the Big Ten, the university was stripped of its AAU membership months prior to the official move. To think that Big Ten officials were unaware of this upcoming decision by the association is the epitome of naivety. They knew and they simply didn't care. Again, money talks.

Then there is the Penn State situation. Whether or not PSU was a good addition to the Big Ten seemed to have been settled as the university crossed the 20-year mark inside the conference. Until reality finality came to the surface. Not only does the Jerry Sandusky situation stain the reputation of Penn State, it stains the reputation of the Big Ten conference and every single one of its member institutions. While it has been reported that the conference considered expelling PSU for its actions (remember, football IS the reason Penn State was added in the first place), Delany and other conference leaders again chose to keep the money rather than taking a stand in support of the Big Ten’s reputation. Without Penn State, the conference would be down to 11 members and no longer eligible for a conference title game in football. No title game means no television deal and that was simply too high a price in Delany’s eyes.

Rutgers has brought forth another test of Delany’s devotion to reputation and as of yet, he has done nothing but fail. Continuing his obsession with bringing the conference to the New York City media market (ignoring the fact that several Big Ten schools have over 10,000 alumni in the market), Delany has tied the Big Ten in knots by sticking with a school whose athletic department has become the laughingstock of collegiate athletics in the wake of a scandal involving an abusive basketball coach and an incompetent search committee who eventually hired as the new athletic director a women facing allegations of abuse at not one but two different schools where she was previously employed.

But besides the scandals, Delany is betting the future of the conference on his belief that adding Rutgers will make New York City crazy for Big Ten football. As an alum myself, that is a bet I do not want the conference to take.

Although the additions of Rutgers and Nebraska were ill-conceived and the scandals facing Penn State should have resulted in the school’s expulsion from the conference, there is a way for the Big Ten to not only survive, but thrive as college athletics continues to undergo a major transformation headlined by conference expansion from coast to coast.

The solution comes from asking the simple question: What does the Big Ten do best?

Off the field, the answer is simple. No other major athletic conference boasts a collection of premier academic institutions even in the ballpark of the Big Ten. From a perennial top-15 school in Northwestern to “public ivys” Michigan, Wisconsin, and Illinois, the Big Ten outpaces the other “BCS” conferences in the classroom without dispute.

Each and every “traditional” Big Ten school has a world-renowned academic program they can call their own:

·      Indiana’s Kelley School of Business ranks 11^th among undergraduate business programs according to US News and World Report

·      Iowa ranks 2^nd in Audiology and 1^st in Speech-Language Pathology programs while boasting a top-30 law school

·      Ohio State has the 5^th ranked Veterinary Medicine program and top-5 programs in Supply Chain Management, Vocational/Technical Education, and Interior Design

·      Michigan State has the top-ranked undergraduate program in Supply Chain/Logistics, a top-15 education program and a top-10 program in Veterinary Medicine

·      Minnesota is home to a top-20 law school and the 3^rd ranked Pharmacy school nationwide

·      Purdue boasts a top-10 engineering school and a top-20 program in computer science

Nebraska lacks a major program ranked inside the top 50 and Rutgers’ lone program inside the top 15 is in Library and Information Studies, not exactly the most robust and viable academic department as technology continues to progress.

The Big Ten has and should continue to excel in the classroom and thus academics need to be involved in the conference’s plans for the future.

Something else the conference does “better than most”, to steal a phrase from Gary Koch, is men’s basketball. Just as the SEC has dominated college football, the Big Ten dominates on the hardwood. While the nature of the game and of its postseason competition has left the conference without the national titles won by the SEC football powers (assuming you consider a BCS title to be a legitimate national championship), the numbers fail to lie when it comes to establishing the supremacy of Big Ten hoops.

Name another conference that relegated a team ranked in the top-10 nationally to the play in game at the start of conference tournament play. You cant.

The Big Ten may have lost its grip on football but there is no doubt the conference has the potential to solidify itself as the dominant power in men’s basketball.

This is where expansion should be focused. Rather than trying to win an unwinnable arms race for football supremacy against the SEC, the Big Ten should re-focus its energy on building its brand around domination on the hardwood. In addition to being a more realistic and equally as lucrative objective, basketball dominance would do more to attract the attention of New York media than any accomplishments on the gridiron. New York is not a college sports town and never will be. They do, however, have a soft spot for college basketball and if Delany wants to reign in the NYC media market for Big Ten exploitation, it will be on the hardwood where that battle is won.

As an added bonus, basketball prowess can be achieved without sacrificing in the classroom. While an expansion that is football-minded will inevitably and has already soiled the academic reputation of the Big Ten, the conference can expand for basketball while boosting that reputation to even greater heights.

So what exactly am I proposing Jim Delany do after all this rambling?

Simple, forget Rutgers and ditch Nebraska. Do that and then take a page out of the Johns Hopkins book by grabbing Georgetown and snatching Cornell. Sound crazy? Maybe, but at least hear me out.

A Big Ten Conference composed of Minnesota, Iowa, Northwestern, Illinois, Wisconsin, Indiana, Purdue, Ohio State, Michigan, Michigan State, Maryland, Cornell, Georgetown, and Penn State[1]would have the potential to send between 8 and 12 teams (out of 14!) to the NCAA Tournament on an annual basis while reaching a level of academic supremacy unparalleled among division 1 conferences.

As for football, the conference would still have perennial title contenders in Michigan and Ohio State while also boasting common top-25 teams from Wisconsin, Northwestern, Michigan State, Iowa, and (post-sanctions) Penn State. Even in such a setup, the Big Ten would arguably have as many teams truly capable of running the table as does the vaunted SEC. But that's another discussion.

Reinforcing the academic reputation of the conference by adding Cornell and Georgetown (while re-classifying University of Chicago to the same “affiliate member” status as Johns Hopkins) would not only add value to the Big Ten brand but more importantly would boost the inherent worth of a Big Ten degree.

Think about it this way: Brown is a member of the Ivy League. Brown is also ranked just 15^th among national universities and boasts exactly zero graduate programs placed inside the top-10 according to US News/World Report. Yet because of Brown’s membership in the Ivy League a degree from the school automatically has attached a level of worth that surpasses the quality that is actually present in the classroom. Membership in the worldwide fraternity that is the Ivy League has its perks and it is the perfect time for the Big Ten to start its own.

Why would Georgetown and Cornell join the Big Ten?

For Georgetown, the answer is fairly simple. With the end of the Big East, the school is in a state of flux when it comes to athletics, gambling on the success of the new “Catholic 7”/Big East both in men’s basketball and in so-called “non-revenue” sports. But the new conference lacks the meat of the former Big East and its potential to generate competition and revenue simply does not match that of the Big Ten and its television network. Additionally, Georgetown would benefit from having a natural geographic rival in Maryland and a potential rival in fellow private school Northwestern to replace lost conference foes Pittsburgh and Syracuse.

Adding Georgetown would further cement the conference’s presence in the Washington market while sealing its fate as the preeminent power in college basketball.

Cornell is probably the most outlandish of my proposed additions to the Big Ten. After all, the Big Red compete in the sacred Ivy League and are currently subject to the conferences’ infamous ban on athletic scholarships. But while Cornell is among the premier academic institutions in the world, it is far from a typical Ivy League school.

While the other seven Ivy League schools average just 6,518 in undergraduate enrollment, Cornell enrolls 13,931 undergraduates in Ithaca. Cornell is also the lone Ivy League school founded after the American Revolution (1865- in line with most Big Ten institutions) and is the only Ivy school that began as a land-grant institution, a history Cornell would share with many of its Big Ten brethren. Joining the Big Ten would allow Cornell to upgrade its athletic and academic facilities while expanding the geographic reach of the school in a way that isn’t currently possible as the “little brother” of the Ivy League.

From the conference’s standpoint, the addition is a no-brainer. The Big Red are a national power in wresting as well as in hockey and lacrosse, helping to provide tremendous value to the conference’s two newest competitive offerings. More importantly, Cornell is the real link to New York City that the conference should be pursuing. In addition to having a graduate campus along with many other academic and research facilities in the city, Cornell has nearly 75,000 living graduates living in New York state, with over 50,000 of them residing in the City itself. New York City has two major college connections: Syracuse and Cornell. Adding Rutgers is not going to get New Yorkers interested in the least.

With Syracuse leaving the Big East for the ACC, the door is open to anyone who wants to be “New York’s college team”. Cornell is best positioned to be that successor, having already established both a well-developed alumni base and an actual campus footprint in the city. With the injection of Big Ten television revenue and other financial support into Big Red athletics, there is no reason Cornell cannot compete on a high-major level in men’s basketball. After all, the Big Red are just three years removed from a Sweet 16 run that was made at the expense of none other than Wisconsin, one of the conference’s most consistent men’s basketball powers in the past decade.

Adding Georgetown and Cornell to the Big Ten at the expense of Nebraska and Rutgers would bring the conference its much-desired entre to the eastern seaboard in a manner that does not put in jeopardy the reputation built by the conference over its hundred-plus years in existence. Adding these two institutions (along with Johns Hopkins) would give the conference not just a couple isolated outposts out east but a true base of operations, with Cornell, Georgetown, Johns Hopkins, Maryland, and Penn State comprising a true eastern consortium within the Big Ten.

The way Jim Delany and the Big Ten are currently embarking on expansion is detrimental to all who are connected to the conference and its institutions. The addition of relatively mediocre institutions devalues the degrees of student athletes, regular students, and Big Ten alumni alike, while the over-reaching geographic expansion forces student-athletes out of the classroom and into the airport unnecessarily. Adding Maryland and Rutgers will only add marginal interest in both DC and New York while boosting the Maryland addition with Georgetown and Cornell would represent a notable splash into both media markets. Finally, Georgetown and Cornell bring to the Big Ten the one thing it has over other major conferences: academic prowess. The futile search for a way to compete with the SEC on the football field has placed that very important feature of the conference in danger and its time we reign these efforts in and re-direct them toward additions that could provide even more opportunity for financial growth and media exposure even if that growth is achieved outside the realm of college football.

Expansion can be a good thing but the way Delany and other conference commissioners have gone about implementing it has thus far been detrimental to the long-term viability of major collegiate athletics. By focusing on shared interests rather than shared profits, commissioners such as Delany can begin to truly represent the interests of their constituents.

---

[1] Sadly I believe we are stuck with PSU. However, I would ideally like to see Penn State expelled and replaced by Vanderbilt