I've seen a lot of discussion and speculation about adding schools to the B1G. Have never seen anywhere the conditions for removal. I know Iowa was actually on some type of membership "probation" for a few years I believe back in the 1930s (not sure why). I need to be clear I am not interested in ANY discussions on removal, partial membership, unequal shares etc. as the day would come where "little Iowa" might become a target. But is anyone aware of conditions (loss of AAU membership, failure to meet competitive benchmarks, etc. etc.) that could be used to first suspend a school (lowered revenue etc.) and then remove them?
How would the B1G remove a school
- Thread starter toddhawkwi
- Start date
Iowa is a top 25 school. We aren't getting kicked out anytime soon.
This has been brought up before, but as far as I can tell, there's no way a conference can legitimately kick out a current member just because.
There has to be cause for expulsion, and athletic performance is not one of those on the list.
I do, however, believe there is precedent of teams getting voted out of a conference, but that's such a slippery slope when you'd need all other members to vote out one team.
Also, a conference could use shady tactics like raising costs or making it so that it becomes too difficult for the smaller schools to compete with the top-performing schools.
But again........very slippery slope there just to kick out a few programs to help the bottom line.
Loss of AAU membership is apparently not justification as UNLLLLLLL lost their AAU membership shortly after they were admitted to the conference.
Yes, Iowa was kicked out of the conference in 1930 for a very short period of time for 'cheating' of some form or another. It turns out all schools were doing the same thing and we were re-admitted. The 1930 schedule included only one (at the time) Big Ten school - Purdue. We did beat Nebraska 12-7 that year. We also be Penn State.
Yes, Iowa was kicked out of the conference in 1930 for a very short period of time for 'cheating' of some form or another. It turns out all schools were doing the same thing and we were re-admitted. The 1930 schedule included only one (at the time) Big Ten school - Purdue. We did beat Nebraska 12-7 that year. We also be Penn State.
Iowa was suspended for financial shenanigans (a slush fund). OMHR (Purdue) was the only conference team to play us in 1930.
theathletic.com
Slush funds and spite: The story behind Iowa’s short-lived Big Ten ouster
The Hawkeyes were briefly booted from the Big Ten in 1930 after being accused of paying players, and the scandal cast a shadow for years.
theathletic.com
As the B1G is currently put together, it is not happening. At all.
How does it happen in the future? This is super unlikely, but I'll throw an idea out there.
The B1G adds Cal, Stanford, Oregon and Washington, who agree to 10 years of lower payouts. B1G/SEC break off and form their own playoff. B1G/SEC become NFL lite. Constant small steps in that direction, like players become employees, the other leagues falling further behind, etc.
The B1G becomes accustomed to differing payouts. The bigger names start to wonder why Purdue gets a full payout. Start to discuss lowering the payouts for some legacy B1G members. Purdue pushes back. League votes Purdue out.
But its not going to happen.
How does it happen in the future? This is super unlikely, but I'll throw an idea out there.
The B1G adds Cal, Stanford, Oregon and Washington, who agree to 10 years of lower payouts. B1G/SEC break off and form their own playoff. B1G/SEC become NFL lite. Constant small steps in that direction, like players become employees, the other leagues falling further behind, etc.
The B1G becomes accustomed to differing payouts. The bigger names start to wonder why Purdue gets a full payout. Start to discuss lowering the payouts for some legacy B1G members. Purdue pushes back. League votes Purdue out.
But its not going to happen.
Maybe A bunch of schools leave and form a new conference.
Warren literally stated that AAU affiliation was not necessary for membership. No school is getting the boot.
Not even that, but the pressure on a school like Purdue to keep up with the other programs, both competitively and financially (not to single out Purdue because there's several other programs that would wind up with that problem).
"Fat, drunk and a Nebraska fan is no way to go through life son".
Last edited:
In a Survivor like ceremony and televise it!
If the Big Ten didn't give Pedo State the boot for harboring a pedophile then nobody is getting the boot.
so there was a time when iowa knew how to get things done.Iowa was suspended for financial shenanigans (a slush fund). OMHR (Purdue) was the only conference team to play us in 1930.
Slush funds and spite: The story behind Iowa’s short-lived Big Ten ouster
The Hawkeyes were briefly booted from the Big Ten in 1930 after being accused of paying players, and the scandal cast a shadow for years.
I don't know how they would do it, but I think they should use Nebraska as a test case and see how it goes.
If Penn St and Michigan St are still members of the B1G after what they went through with Sandusky and Nassar, then it must be literally impossible for a school to be kicked out.
Go over to clown fanatic. Their utter despair has spiraled into a tirade about how Michigan and OSU run our conference and a likely to kick teams out, particularly Iowa. Their dire situation has really brought out their venomous preoccupation with all things Iowa in the BIG. It's actually quite pathetic.
The B10 isnt the Sunbelt which kicked out New Mexico State and Idaho. Idaho is now FCS.
Get rid of the anchor that is Nebraska. Get that p.o.s. program outta here.
If the team that is second from the bottom votes out the bottom team guess who is on the bottom then?
I do think there is a risk that at some point in the future the top schools try to break away and form a new super league. This nearly happened recently with European soccer but there was enough fan uproar that they ended up not doing it.
I know lots of people think this could never happen but 5 years ago it would have sounded crazy to have UCLA in the BigTen and Texas in the SEC, etc. so I think it’s clear that pretty much anything is possible now that tradition and geography mean nothing and the only thing that matters is revenue maximizing. It would definitely bring in more money to have Washington instead of schools like Northwestern and Purdue, but since it would be so hard to kick out schools I think the more likely approach would be to have a break-away league instead.
In terms of timing, it would probably make sense to do it when schools current media deals don’t have many years left so maybe the 2030s if the BigTen, SEC, ACC, etc media deals come close to expiring at the same time.
en.m.wikipedia.org
I know lots of people think this could never happen but 5 years ago it would have sounded crazy to have UCLA in the BigTen and Texas in the SEC, etc. so I think it’s clear that pretty much anything is possible now that tradition and geography mean nothing and the only thing that matters is revenue maximizing. It would definitely bring in more money to have Washington instead of schools like Northwestern and Purdue, but since it would be so hard to kick out schools I think the more likely approach would be to have a break-away league instead.
In terms of timing, it would probably make sense to do it when schools current media deals don’t have many years left so maybe the 2030s if the BigTen, SEC, ACC, etc media deals come close to expiring at the same time.
European Super League - Wikipedia
As stated before, several times, the fly in the ointment for the super league theory is simple. The super teams need to do one thing continuously to stay top teams, WIN! If you had a super division with say, just Bama, OSU, Clemson, Michigan, Oklahoma, LSU, ...... Well first off theres the first issue right there. Just how many teams are really in that group? I mean REALLY? How do you form a league with that? Then remember our first issue. These teams need to WIN, Well guess what, if they break into their own group, half of these teams become losers. Even if you can make a schedule out of , hell I don't know, playing each other twice every year, then someone's getting a bunch of losses. What happens when your say, Oklahoma, and you start going 3-9 every year? This is the thing, regardless of the $$$. They need Iowa, Minnesota, Purdue, NW, Indiana, MSU, Wisconsin and all the 2nd level teams in the SEC to have WINNING records for the so called super powers. They can't just play there own clique, and stay top teams....I do think there is a risk that at some point in the future the top schools try to break away and form a new super league. This nearly happened recently with European soccer but there was enough fan uproar that they ended up not doing it.
I know lots of people think this could never happen but 5 years ago it would have sounded crazy to have UCLA in the BigTen and Texas in the SEC, etc. so I think it’s clear that pretty much anything is possible now that tradition and geography mean nothing and the only thing that matters is revenue maximizing. It would definitely bring in more money to have Washington instead of schools like Northwestern and Purdue, but since it would be so hard to kick out schools I think the more likely approach would be to have a break-away league instead.
In terms of timing, it would probably make sense to do it when schools current media deals don’t have many years left so maybe the 2030s if the BigTen, SEC, ACC, etc media deals come close to expiring at the same time.
European Super League - Wikipedia
Last edited:
Yeah, I’ve seen lots of people make that argument. I just think it’s going every year a little closer to the NFL model. In the NFL there are very few gimme games because there is no equivalent to non-conference tune-up games against Akron. And in the NFL sometimes even good teams end up with a losing record. Of course they also all fire their coaching staffs about once every 3 years. But I’m not sure I believe the NFL would be better off with a bunch more teams that don’t have a realistic chance of winning whose only real purpose is to serve up easy wins to the top teams.
Sorry, but the NFL model is totally different. Teams get to draft in order each year. Have a great year, you pick last in each round this raising a better chance at parity. Its not like college where the top teams can stockpile all the top 100 players. With the draft and free agency, if you want to spend the $$, every team has a shot. Even with the portal how many teams in the NCAA have a legit shot most years? Five or six? How do you make a seperate super league out of that?
Forge a white supremacist alliance with Idaho, Annex Nebraska by force, merge UNL with ISU, forcing them to join the L12, and replace with Notre Dame.
That's as realistic as any school getting kicked out of the Big Ten.
The only clauses that allow for removal of schools from conferences typically involve inability to compete in the major revenue sports.
i.e. If a conference school de-emphasizes a major sport or a regulating body issues the death penalty in football or men's basketball, then the conference can suspend membership of that school or consider expulsion.
But generally that's the only situation that allows for the Big Ten to kick out a member.
It really requires a school to be unable to play D1 football/basketball for some reason. There's no other way to remove a school as far as I know.
As long as a school is fielding football/basketball teams, they can't be kicked out...
Can't field a team or can't field a team capable of performing at the D1 level in football and basketball.... ummm Nebraska??
Correct East. I've been saying this for some time. The blue bloods/types of teams that would be candidates to form a Super League are not used to losing. Period. What the OSU, Michigan, Alabama, Georgia, etc of the world want from a league are a couple of things: revenue and access to championships. Big 10 checks the box on the revenue side. And it does on the championship side too. If OSU or Michigan wins the Big 10, they are in the playoff barring some real weirdness like 3 losses. And in an expanded playoff, the Big 10 will be one of the power brokers now adding USC and UCLA.
And the point about the drafting and how players are acquired is the key reason college FB can't just full on go the NFL route. Legally, no way, no how anything could be set up where a team like Iowa or Purdue gets first dibs on a 5-star recruit from Florida.
It's not a 100% certainty that the Big 10 would never boot out less desirable teams for "better" ones. But I would call it highly unlikely. A lot would have to change in how Big 10 presidents view sports and their role in the universities. I would call it much more likely (but still very unlikely) that OSU and/or Michigan decides to move on to some other league. But again, we get to the point of the original post. These super teams are not signing up for something where they have a good shot of going .500 every year.
I can easily see the SEC and B1G breaking up one day, where the biggest of the big names form their own superleague (possibly separate from the NCAA) and the "undesirables" getting left behind, rather than getting actively pushed out.
A factor that many folks aren't accounting for is that the B1G is a lot more than just an athletics conference. It also has a lot to do with resource sharing in the research-realm. As has been stated in another thread - research money still dwarfs sports revenue money ... and it dwarfs it by at least an order of magnitude.
As a historical precedent, the University of Chicago removed itself from the sports-side of the Big 10 - but it remained a member of the coalition of schools as a whole until 2016 (but it still retains some connection via affiliation agreements).
This academic side of the B1G was formerly known as the Committee on Institutional Cooperation (CIC) but has subsequently been rebranded as the Big Ten Academic Alliance (BTAA).
Based upon the precedent of the University of Chicago - member institutions can choose to leave the athletic-side of the conference/association. However, I am not aware of any way that a member institution could get booted without cause. Given the sort of infractions that we've seen at places like Penn State and Michigan State - but the fact that they have not been booted - it would strike me as exceedingly difficult for an institute to get removed altogether. Thus, I would surmise that we WOULD NOT see member institutions get removed from the conference ... however, this does NOT necessarily imply that they could not LEAVE.
In the super-conference scenario, I don't know the "strings attached" that are entailed with B1G membership ... however, I would guess that the association makes it hard for a member to leave the athletics side of conference to join a different athletic conference. Were that to happen, they would probably get booted from the BTAA ... and that would be a penalty that the school would likely avoid at all costs.
love the randomness, but you missed an opportunity here...
*Frank, Ulysses, Charlie, Ken, Oliver, Fred, and Fernando 😉
AGAIN, please read the earlier post. This is a non starter. Please explain how many teams your talking about. I'm talking about REAL power brokers. Bama, Georgia, OSU, Clemson, and mmmaaayyybbbeee Oklahoma, all though I'm not sure there even in that group. Michigan? Maybe, but frankly they've beaten OSU ONCE on the last what seven years? Are they really a power broker now? So lets throw them in as one of the poor ass teams thats going to go 4 -8 every year. Boy their going to be real happy in Ann Arbor don't you think? So we've got six teams . Who else you got? Anybody else you throw in there is going to be in the freakin losers bracket most years. So those teams are really going to leave the security of the BIG, or the SEC to go 5-7 or worse every year? Not.....Again, the "undesirables" as you call them are necessary for those teams to be power teams and have a shot at that 11-1 or 12-0 season and the CFP. Without them half those teams are going to start losing A LOT of games.....
Absolutely ... sports competitions are a zero-sum game. If you have your winners ... then you necessarily have to have your losers.
What happens when a former perennial winner becomes the new cellar-dweller? They rapidly want to exit their current predicament.
