Rumor: Pitt Joining the Big Ten

[Maize]

Totally agree Nesper. I think 14 works out the best, schedule wise. Plus, if they add two more, it could help to balance the divisions, both regionally and in ability.

 

[Pitty]

I don't know where you got your 2010 class ranking, but I just went to Rivals and they had Pitt with the 33rd best class for 2010.

http://rivals100.rivals.com/teamrank.asp?Year=2010&Page=2&PosType=0&Sort=0

Rivals? Funded by shoe companies and NFL teams.

 

[Pitty]

 

[ram29jackson]

Any excuse to get Penn State to play Pitt every year is fine with me.

 

[Senser81]

Scout.com - It's actually 16th now after signing day. Rivals is terrible.

LOL...I didn't know one recruiting ranking site could be somehow MORE worthless than any other.

 

[Senser81]

Any excuse to get Penn State to play Pitt every year is fine with me.

Nobody asked you for your opinion. Please stop posting in my forum area.

TY

 

[FirstTimer]

Scout.com - It's actually 16th now after signing day. Rivals is terrible.

Then why would you cite Rivals at all to begin with pages ago when discussing Walt Harris?

 

[ram29jackson]

Nobody asked you for your opinion. Please stop posting in my forum area.

TY

widdle baby upset aaawwww, sowwy widdle one. ....tough crap

 

[Sportsbuck]

I used to use Rivals, until a few years ago. I think it was Sportsbuck that pointed me to Scout.

To be fair this was when I was at the height of my homerism and I liked Scout because they rated Buckeye recruits higher.

Rivals is better than Scout, but neither are too great. They should let the local guys who know the state make the rankings, for instance they screw up Ohio rankings every year.

 

[jHammack]

I quoted rivals because I wanted you too see the high/low of each. I use Scout, I prefer it over rivals because over the years Rivals has missed on a lot of recruits, where Scout (still misses a lot) is more unbiased. They both suck, but I prefer scout.

 

[jHammack]

I used to use Rivals, until a few years ago. I think it was Sportsbuck that pointed me to Scout.

Although Pitt does a decent job recruiting, and Wannstedt has proven he can recruit well enough in the region. He also draws more from the east coast, which is a benefit of playing in Pennsylvania.

I think the Big Ten comments denying Pitt is a smokescreen. The announcement might not be for a while, but I think it's Pitt. I also heard that is is not crazy to think that the Big Ten could expand to 14 teams by 2015.

For example, top NJ player TJ Clemmings.

 

[jHammack]

To be fair this was when I was at the height of my homerism and I liked Scout because they rated Buckeye recruits higher.

Rivals is better than Scout, but neither are too great. They should let the local guys who know the state make the rankings, for instance they screw up Ohio rankings every year.

They screw up a lot of the NJ players.. Lewis for example was so underrated by everyone at these scouting sites. Even TJ, since he was such a late bloomer got a 4* ranking by rivals when people are saying he might be in the top 4-5 defensive ends

 

[FirstTimer]

I quoted rivals because I wanted you too see the high/low of each. I use Scout, I prefer it over rivals because over the years Rivals has missed on a lot of recruits, where Scout (still misses a lot) is more unbiased. They both suck, but I prefer scout.

Why would you even care about the high/low of it if Rivals sucks?

 

[Senser81]

Why would you even care about the high/low of it if Rivals sucks?

I think he wanted us to see how much Rivals sucks...Pitt can have alleged top 10 recruiting classes under Wannstedt and still go 5-7 every year.

 

[jHammack]

Rivals might suck but I had them both up. I closed Rivals when I started doing Wannstedt's and just didn't feel like bringing it back up.

5-7 every year... I guess every year doesn't include the past two.

 

[Fox1994]

Nobody asked you for your opinion. Please stop posting in my forum area.

TY

Haha. You're a douche.

widdle baby upset aaawwww, sowwy widdle one. ....tough crap

Haha. Wow, I've given you two +reps. You might be on to something.

---

If they do fourteen teams, who all would fill-in? Twelve seems like a good idea... All the BCS conferences going to twelve seems like a good idea... But I don't see who would fill-in a fourteen-team conference...

 

[jHammack]

14 to me seems to watered down in my opinion. I guess it would depend on the teams that join. I wouldn't want the Big 10 to pick just random schools and it would be hard for a lot of schools to meet the Big 10's academic requirement. If they got Notre Dame (which would be impossible until the BCS says Fuck You Notre Dame you can have a chance at a BCS game at large just like the Utah's and TCU's. That will then force ND's hand) and say Missouri on top of Pitt, and make it 14 that would be a decent group.

Plus they all meet the academic requirements. 14 in one conference is crazy though. I think 12 is good and works well. Big 12, ACC, and SEC all work out nice for their conference championship games (except for the whole Texas getting screwed thing). It would be interesting though.

 

[Fox1994]

So if Big Ten became Big 14, would Big 12, ACC, and SEC become fourteen-team conferences?

 

[Woy]

So if Big Ten became Big 14, would Big 12, ACC, and SEC become fourteen-team conferences?

Yes.

 

[Fox1994]

6*14=84

So the remaining conferences total 26 teams? Or do we just break-up the MAC, C-USA, MWC, WAC, and Sun Belt for football and make them independent for FBS football? Or do we move them down to FCS?