header pic

Perhaps the BEST B1G Forum anywhere, here at College Football Fan Site, CFB51!!!

The 'Old' CFN/Scout Crowd- Enjoy Civil discussion, game analytics, in depth player and coaching 'takes' and discussing topics surrounding the game. You can even have your own free board, all you have to do is ask!!!

Anyone is welcomed and encouraged to join our FREE site and to take part in our community- a community with you- the user, the fan, -and the person- will be protected from intrusive actions and with a clean place to interact.


Author

Topic: UCLA and USC

 (Read 49326 times)

Cincydawg

  • Oracle of Piedmont Park
  • Global Moderator
  • Hall of Fame
  • *****
  • Default Avatar
  • Posts: 72131
  • Oracle of Piedmont Park
  • Liked:
Re: UCLA and USC
« Reply #574 on: July 18, 2022, 07:45:54 AM »
Yeah, I called them "pretty prime" just to mean someone will value them.  The B1G probably would value Stanford and UC-B more.  UDubb?


847badgerfan

  • Administrator
  • Hall of Fame
  • *****
  • Posts: 25482
  • Liked:
Re: UCLA and USC
« Reply #575 on: July 18, 2022, 07:57:37 AM »
I'm pretty convinced that the next round will be SU and ND, and I don't think they stop there.
U RAH RAH! WIS CON SIN!

Cincydawg

  • Oracle of Piedmont Park
  • Global Moderator
  • Hall of Fame
  • *****
  • Default Avatar
  • Posts: 72131
  • Oracle of Piedmont Park
  • Liked:
Re: UCLA and USC
« Reply #576 on: July 18, 2022, 08:20:09 AM »
I figure once you get to 20, you're really two conferences, in effect.

The SEC claims it's done, but that obviously is "subject to review".

Anyway, they don't ask me.

LittlePig

  • Starter
  • *****
  • Posts: 1372
  • Liked:
Re: UCLA and USC
« Reply #577 on: July 18, 2022, 08:41:38 AM »
I figure once you get to 20, you're really two conferences, in effect.

The SEC claims it's done, but that obviously is "subject to review".

Anyway, they don't ask me.
I believe as long as all the football teams play ar least 50% of the time, it can be considered one conference.  So it is possible with 20 teams if you play 10 conference games and have only 1 fixed annual rival.  Then you could do a 1-9-9 schedule. 

With that said, a lot of teams would have an issue with only 1 fixed annual rival and many would push for at least 2 or 3 rivals.  So that suggests with 20 conference teams, you would have to do at least 11 conference games, then you could do a 3-8-8 schedule.

Cincydawg

  • Oracle of Piedmont Park
  • Global Moderator
  • Hall of Fame
  • *****
  • Default Avatar
  • Posts: 72131
  • Oracle of Piedmont Park
  • Liked:
Re: UCLA and USC
« Reply #578 on: July 18, 2022, 08:43:55 AM »
I figured your rivals will be geographically close and thus in the same subconference anyway.

bayareabadger

  • Legend
  • ****
  • Default Avatar
  • Posts: 7877
  • Liked:
Re: UCLA and USC
« Reply #579 on: July 18, 2022, 09:22:34 AM »
The thing I’ll be interested in is how we treat/feel about whoever rises from the ashes in the left behind groups. 

The fact is, a conference only has so many wins to go around. Someone has to lose the games. Some SEC teams or Big Ten teams go 6-6. And in turn. Someone left out is gonna start running up 10-12 win seasons. 

In some ways, those fans will be happier, but I suppose the question is how much happier? I doubt it balances out the unhappiness of the folks with a rougher time. 

Cincydawg

  • Oracle of Piedmont Park
  • Global Moderator
  • Hall of Fame
  • *****
  • Default Avatar
  • Posts: 72131
  • Oracle of Piedmont Park
  • Liked:
Re: UCLA and USC
« Reply #580 on: July 18, 2022, 09:26:03 AM »
The money would drop off considerably, and there are sports beyond football that need it.  Sure, maybe a team goes 11-1, but is broke in effect.

The program is better off going 6-6 in a real conference.

bayareabadger

  • Legend
  • ****
  • Default Avatar
  • Posts: 7877
  • Liked:
Re: UCLA and USC
« Reply #581 on: July 18, 2022, 10:02:15 AM »
The money would drop off considerably, and there are sports beyond football that need it.  Sure, maybe a team goes 11-1, but is broke in effect.

The program is better off going 6-6 in a real conference.
I mean from a fan perspective. 

if you have like department makes extra money, and can pay for a very nice softball team, does that really affect me? And beyond that, 6-6 team is more frequently paying out eight-figure buyouts trying to swim in a deeper pond. 

Cincydawg

  • Oracle of Piedmont Park
  • Global Moderator
  • Hall of Fame
  • *****
  • Default Avatar
  • Posts: 72131
  • Oracle of Piedmont Park
  • Liked:
Re: UCLA and USC
« Reply #582 on: July 18, 2022, 10:16:40 AM »
It's a balancing act no doubt, but would Missouri want to be in the Big 12 future conference just to have a better shot at being 10-2?

Maybe 7-5 is near their upper limit in the SEC barring exceptional years, but they won't move out.

Gigem

  • Starter
  • *****
  • Posts: 2153
  • Liked:
Re: UCLA and USC
« Reply #583 on: July 18, 2022, 11:56:07 AM »
Everybody keeps talking about teams being left behind, but did they really ever have a chance?  Take the top 10-20 teams in CFB.  Year in and year out it's the same pecking order.  Ohio St, ND, Alabama.  All we're really fighting for is 10-20.  Auburn, A&M, LSU of the CFB world.  .  

30-50?  Fuggetaboutit.  Aside from Va Tech in '99, when was the last time one of these outsider teams had a legit chance?  You can give Vanderbilt all the money in the world from being in the SEC, they'll never do better than 3rd or 4th in their division.  They literally have not won the conference title ever AFAIK, or if they did it was so long ago nobody remembers it.  So at some point when does it really stop being all about the money, and more about success?  IMO all of these "secondary" teams would be much better served having their own league anyway where they could actually compete for something instead of perennial 5th place.   

And before you start in about A&M and our lack of success I'm fully aware of our lack of SEC hardware but I think you'd be foolish to think that we are incapable of winning it eventually.  We won the SWC multiple times, won the Big 12, won the Big 12 South multiple times.  The potential is there, the boxes are checked.  Schools like TCU and Texas Tech?  Where do they fit?  

GopherRock

  • Starter
  • *****
  • Posts: 2441
  • Liked:
Re: UCLA and USC
« Reply #584 on: July 18, 2022, 12:01:01 PM »
Oregon is not as prime as it likes to think it is. They are scrambling now, just like Oregon State is scrambling.
This. 

Washington is the one in the driver's seat in the whole realignment mess out of the PNW.

Cincydawg

  • Oracle of Piedmont Park
  • Global Moderator
  • Hall of Fame
  • *****
  • Default Avatar
  • Posts: 72131
  • Oracle of Piedmont Park
  • Liked:
Re: UCLA and USC
« Reply #585 on: July 18, 2022, 12:12:49 PM »
Being left behind is more about money than winning an NC.  The SEC has programs on a par in football with TCU and TT, but they get a lot more money.

And they can at times excel in other sports.  Vandy has had some good baseball teams.

bayareabadger

  • Legend
  • ****
  • Default Avatar
  • Posts: 7877
  • Liked:
Re: UCLA and USC
« Reply #586 on: July 18, 2022, 12:51:32 PM »
It's a balancing act no doubt, but would Missouri want to be in the Big 12 future conference just to have a better shot at being 10-2?

Maybe 7-5 is near their upper limit in the SEC barring exceptional years, but they won't move out.
I mean, the admins would not. And I suppose the fans would probably not be happy about it because fans are predisposed to not be happy about things.

The 7-5/10-2 debate is interesting because hope springs eternal and there's always enough evidence that some things can break right sometimes. Mizzou won 23 games in two years in the SEC. South Carolina won 40 in four. So you get fed hope, and then have to go years bouncing between 5-7 and 7-5, trying to decide how to feel about it.

I always compare Wisconsin to some of those teams. Wisconsin often wins nine games, oft aided by the West Division. Some of those teams probably go 6-6 in the East or in the SEC, but I'm a lot happier than those fans with the outcome, and I think the average fan is as well.

medinabuckeye1

  • Legend
  • ****
  • Default Avatar
  • Posts: 8941
  • Liked:
Re: UCLA and USC
« Reply #587 on: July 18, 2022, 01:27:32 PM »
I believe as long as all the football teams play ar least 50% of the time, it can be considered one conference.  So it is possible with 20 teams if you play 10 conference games and have only 1 fixed annual rival.  Then you could do a 1-9-9 schedule. 

With that said, a lot of teams would have an issue with only 1 fixed annual rival and many would push for at least 2 or 3 rivals.  So that suggests with 20 conference teams, you would have to do at least 11 conference games, then you could do a 3-8-8 schedule.
I just don't see 10, let alone 11-game league schedules happening for two reasons:
  • A number of teams have OOC rivalries such as IA/ISU, PU/ND, etc. Hard to do that with only one or two OOC slots available. 
  • At least for now, you need to go .500 to go bowling. Most teams schedule for that by playing just one marquee OOC game and two bodybags. If Purdue was scheduled to play 11 B1G games and ND then even a pretty good PU team could end up ineligible to bowl at 5-7.


 

Support the Site!
Purchase of every item listed here DIRECTLY supports the site.