There's been some talk lately, prompted by an interview given by Big Ten commissioner Jim Delany, of expanding the Big Ten (HT: Brian at the Fanhouse). This comes up with some regularity and has usually involved adding Notre Dame, but Delany seems to be looking eastward in this case, specifically to Rutgers and Syracuse. Expansion holds additional appeal now for the Big Ten, with the Big Ten Network getting up and running. An additional school would provide additional games for the network, and that's obviously a good thing for the network. The addition of a New York school would provide an added benefit for the network, though: currently, they're asking for $1.10 per customer from cable companies in the Big Ten region, and something like $.10 for customers everywhere else. Adding a Rutgers or Syracuse would put New York in the Big Ten region, and bring them an extra buck for each customer of a cable company carrying the network. That's a lot of extra cash.

Aside from the financial benefits of adding a New York school, Rutgers and Syracuse seem like curious choices. For starters, the schools' athletics aren't exactly top notch. Rutgers was very good last year in football, but that's just one season, and their basketball team is underwhelming, to say the least. Syracuse has been pretty consistent in basketball, but what happens when Jim Boeheim retires (or when Greg Schiano moves on from Rutgers, for that matter)? Syracuse football was pretty good not long ago, but they're pretty bad now. Neither school adds a whole lot to the athletic side, and they don't fit in especially well geographically. They're good enough academically, which, as Brian points out, is a real issue in conference expansion, but I think the addition of either school would be a purely financial decision.

There are a few other schools that, while not bringing in the TV audience of a New York school, make more sense from a competitive and geographical standpoint. Pitt is a good school academically and a decent school athletically, and their addition would finally stop all the calls for Pitt and Penn State to start playing each other again. West Virginia's an up-and-coming program, but the academics might not be up to the standards the conference would look for in a new member. Louisville and Memphis are pretty near geographically, but as Brian pointed at at the Fanhouse about Louisville, they're southern schools, and the Big Ten is not a southern conference. The conference could expand westward and try to steal Iowa State or Missouri from the Big 12, but I have a hard time seeing that happening. Then there's Notre Dame, which is located in the heart of the Big Ten, is a good school academically and athletically, and is already playing half of a Big Ten schedule this season. But if they haven't joined yet, I don't see why they would now.

But is expansion even a good idea? As both Delany and Kirk Ferentz note in the article, a 12-team, two division conference isn't entirely a good thing. The last game of the regular season would be devalued by the addition of a championship game, which might not be a big deal for, say, Northwestern, but the Buckeyes' last game is one we all take pretty seriously. We all know how often that game's decided the Big Ten champion; just look at last year. One versus two, winner gets the Big Ten championship and a trip to the national championship game. How would you have felt if, after the Buckeyes beat Michigan, they'd have had to play Wisconsin in a championship game? That's probably the best argument against a twelve-team conference I've heard. OSU-Michigan is probably the biggest event of the year for me; I don't think I'd deal well with it never being more than the second-biggest game in the season schedule.

Update: So, between writing this post and getting a chance to actually post it, Brian went ahead and discussed the expansion possibility way more thoroughly than I. It's rare that someone steals your thunder when you're expanding upon a post they did earlier, but he did it.