CFB51 College Football Fan Community
The Power Five => Big Ten => Topic started by: MaximumSam on September 02, 2019, 07:27:34 AM
-
No interesting midweek games as the NFL gets ramped up, but Saturday we do get some decent finds.
Noon
Cincinnati at OSU, ABC - A possibly challenging game for the Bucks. Unlikely they will ease through Cincy like butter the way they did FAU in the first quarter.
Army at Michigan, Fox - If Army can get some first downs this game could be interesting
Rutgers at Iowa, FS1 - An actual B1G game, where we see if Rutgers has become a real team
Syracuse at Maryland, ESPN - Syracuse is a quality team and I'm very intrigued to see how Maryland handles them
Vanderbilt at Purdue, BTN - Really important for Purdue to snag a win
3:30
Central Michigan at Wisconsin, BTN - Smashy smashy
Nebraska at Colorado, Fox - Nebraska needing a better looking performance for a win here
Illinois at UConn, CBSSN - Could Illinois be 2-0?
Eastern Illinois at Indiana, BTN - Meh
7:30
Buffalo at Penn State, Fox - Buffalo is not a hot garbage team, can PSU dominate again?
Western Michigan at MSU, BTN - Looking for a running game
10:30
Minnesota at Fresno St., CBSSN - Minny also needing some extra juice to get a win
Others
Texas A&M at Clemson, 3:30, ABC - Really big test for the defending champs
LSU at Texas, 7:30, ABC - Nice tilt between two programs trying to break through
-
Vandy and Purdue could both be playing for that Win #6.
-
much better than week 1
-
I'd expect Cincy to hang around for 2.3 quarters and then fade. Syracuse "should" beat Maryland, but I'm sniffing an upset there. Vandy at Purdue might end up 6-4 in triple OT or something. Nebbie at CO? I have read nothing about CO, still assume they are awful.
Clemson will probably hammer A&M late something like 41-21.
LSU @ Texas, probably the best GotW. I'll guess LSU 27 Texas 20.
-
Nebraska opens as 7.5-point favorites over Colorado, but the line quickly drops to 5.5
Huskers O-line looked terrible - no improvement from last season
-
Syracuse "should" beat Maryland
Why?
You keep up with Syracuse? You know how many people they've lost? How many injuries?
You keep up with Maryland?
Just curious how you believe "they should"?
-
Why?
You keep up with Syracuse? You know how many people they've lost? How many injuries?
You keep up with Maryland?
Just curious how you believe "they should"?
Give him hell! He also thinks Texas is going to lose to LSU 27-20. He's obviously a hack!
-
Teas "should" lose to LSU
-
Give him hell! He also thinks Texas is going to lose to LSU 27-20. He's obviously a hack!
Feels good to get the first game of the season win, doesn't it?
;)
-
Feels even better winning the Sugar Bowl and finishing in the Top 10.
-
Teas "should" lose to LSU
Yeah that's what everyone told us last season in New Orleans. I guess the team didn't get the memo.
-
Feels even better winning the Sugar Bowl and finishing in the Top 10.
You just made us SEC E Champs.
-
I'd expect Cincy to hang around for 2.3 quarters and then fade. Syracuse "should" beat Maryland, but I'm sniffing an upset there. Vandy at Purdue might end up 6-4 in triple OT or something. Nebbie at CO? I have read nothing about CO, still assume they are awful.
Clemson will probably hammer A&M late something like 41-21.
LSU @ Texas, probably the best GotW. I'll guess LSU 27 Texas 20.
I'll disagree with just about everything you have written here.
I have OSU on High Upset alert.
- Cincinnati has the talent to compete.
- They have a coach who starred in 50 games at OSU, and coached over a decade there.
- Bearcats have the top 77 players from Ohio that didn't get an offer from OSU. Including RB Warren Mr. Ohio in Football.
- This whole team is a walking"chip on the shoulder" This game is goona get U-G-L-Y, and if The 'Nati can get the Bucks to play their game can pull off the upset.
Maryland is a field goal underdog to Syracuse, but looked a hell of lot better beating Howard (79-0) than the Orange did against Liberty (24-0) I think Maryland's overall talent is a step better than Syracuse, mainly because they don't have all the injuries they have had the last 2 seasons.
Vandy - Purdue will be a high scoring affair.
Nebraska - Colorado - you left a question mark, so I can't disagree with you, but the point spread getting bet down to 5 points really quick has me thinking it should be a pretty good game.
Clemson will hammer A&M early, and maybe let A&M get some mop up scores to make the stats look decent.
I have faith in the only team in the B12 to play defense. 😈 Texas holds off LSU late to squeak out win.
-
. . . I have faith in the only team in the B12 to play defense. 😈 Texas holds off LSU late to squeak out win.
TCU plays defense too, maybe the best in the Big 12.
-
Nebraska opens as 7.5-point favorites over Colorado, but the line quickly drops to 5.5
Huskers O-line looked terrible - no improvement from last season
the line went down cause everybody was taking Colorado
I always give more weight to opening lines then later unless of course
theres been an injury etc
-
I just hope we dont get our ass kicked
If we can keep LSU from scoring more then 45 I'll be happy
-
So, if LSU wins 45-0 ...? Sarcasm.
-
You just made us SEC E Champs.
Nah, Texas is SEC East champs. You're the team that went 5-7 and lost to Temple.
-
So, if LSU wins 45-0 ...? Sarcasm.
I'll be cryin in my beer
I think the Horns will put at least 30 up
but that probably wont be enough
-
I just hope we dont get our ass kicked
If we can keep LSU from scoring more then 45 I'll be happy
I've been assured by all of the knowledgeable folks that Texas will lose to LSU 77-3. Their new fast-paced offense is like nothing Texas ever sees aside from every week in the B12, and their defense is almost as impossible to score on as Georgia's and we all know that Texas couldn't possibly beat Georgia or any other top-10 SECSECSEC team.
Simply put, we're doomed.
-
TCU plays defense too, maybe the best in the Big 12.
Agree, TCU's defense is for real. Gary Patteron knows what the heck he's doing. It's scary to think what he could do if he were pulling in consistent top 10 type recruiting classes, especially on the defensive side of the ball.
-
Simply put, we're doomed.
Well I'm glad you're finally seeing the inevitable.Might as well send me all of your Live Oak OaktoberFest.I hold onto it while you're battling the malaise-no sense taking any chances.Hell I'll go one better and make sure it's disposed of so no drunk gets their hands on it,kind of guy I am
-
I'm quite glad ASU gets one more tune up (Sacramento St) before traveling to East Lansing.
-
Nah, Texas is SEC East champs. You're the team that went 5-7 and lost to Temple.
That's okay.
We play in a tougher conference, have had QB issues for near a decade, and still beat Texas, twice, back to back.
There's still hope.
May we both have a fruitful season.
-
TCU plays defense too, maybe the best in the Big 12.
I agree, it was more to try and poke a barb at the rest of you B12-2 posters.
-
May we [Texas and Maryland] both have a fruitful season.
+1
Texas' coach is an ex-Buckeye, so I watch them and hope they do good.
I root for Maryland in all but one game. I get really frustrated when they get lumped in with Rutgers as not deserving to be in the B1G. Maryland is a great school, with great athletics, they are B1G ten worthy. It's not their fault they got added with the dredges of the East Coast, and that they are playing 4 top 20ish teams each year in football. There is only a handful of teams that can post a winning record against OSU-MSU, PSU and TTUN. (Maybe 3-4 in the SEC, 2 in the ACC, 2 in the B12, and 0-1 in the Pac?) So, I root for Maryland all the time cause I want them to feel wanted by our conference, and winning breeds respect.
-
That's okay.
We play in a tougher conference, have had QB issues for near a decade, and still beat Texas, twice, back to back.
There's still hope.
May we both have a fruitful season.
Tougher conference? LULZ. Just look at the bowl game win %. Just look at week1's OOC win%. Nobody's buying that bulljive but you.
But I can certainly join you in wishing for a fruitful season.
-
I agree, it was more to try and poke a barb at the rest of you B12-2 posters.
Not gonna ruffle my rhubarb, TCU has played consistently good defense way more than anyone else in the B12, including and especially my own team.
-
Not gonna ruffle my rhubarb, TCU has played consistently good defense way more than anyone else in the B12, including and especially my own team.
No, no! More especially MY own team! At least over the last 5 years, anyway.
-
No, no! More especially MY own team! At least over the last 5 years, anyway.
C-Dub, you and I have had our differences, but I'm gonna have to just go ahead and ask you to just back off. Sure, maybe your defense was the worst last year, but Texas owns the shitty defense trophy from 2014-2017 and no amount of your protests is going to change that!
-
CW
I'd let him "win" this one
-
Well, one of us is going to have to be the bigger man, so--just this once--I'll let your ridiculous claim stand with no further rebuttal.
-
Good advice, Fearless. I was probably feeling some positive waves when I decided to let Utee win the argument.
-
Well, one of us is going to have to be the bigger man, so--just this once--I'll let your ridiculous claim stand with no further rebuttal.
That's mighty kind of you. Thanks!
-
you're welcome!
-
I watched the OU/Houston game and was surprised at the ability of Houston to move the ball
on the sooners
Not sure if UH is under rated or if the sooner defense needs some work
course the Horn defense definitely needs some work
-
Pretty even representation this week:
https://mobile.twitter.com/PFF_College/status/1168557469414694917?s=20
-
tOSU needs solid line play so I'll take it.As long as that assessment is from PFF and not Ekrich
-
Everybody needs solid line play, of course. Games are won and lost there, of course. Underappreciated aspect of the game. Folks focus on the "skill" positions.
Give me great lines and average skill players and I can do pretty well.
-
Ed Zachery
-
the Husker O-Line needs much improvement
skill players have skill
-
Vandy and Purdue could both be playing for that Win #6.
WRT Purdue, I was thinking the same thing. Purdue's schedule is rough. Their OOC of @Nevada, vs Vanderbilt, vs TCU doesn't have any major headliners but it doesn't have any pushovers either. It would be nearly impossible to get to 6-6 if they start out 0-3 and TCU is probably tougher than Vandy so this game is almost a "Must Win".
In conference play they have five home games that could each be winnable:
- Indiana
- Illinois
- Minnesota
- Nebraska
- Maryland
Then four road games that will likely each be really tough:
- Wisconsin
- Penn State
- Iowa
- Northwestern
I don't see six B1G wins and five is far from a lock so they could REALLY use a win in this home game against Vanderbilt.
-
C-Dub, you and I have had our differences, but I'm gonna have to just go ahead and ask you to just back off. Sure, maybe your defense was the worst last year, but Texas owns the shitty defense trophy from 2014-2017 and no amount of your protests is going to change that!
everything's bigger in texas, even the suckitude.
-
Rankings are current B1G Power Rankings:
- #1 tOSU -16 vs Cincy
- #2 Michigan -23.5 vs Army
- #3 Wisconsin -35 vs CMU
- #4 Penn State -30 vs Buffalo
- #5 Michigan State -16 vs WMU
- #6 Iowa vs #14 Rutgers (no line on worldwide leader right now)
- #7 Maryland -1.5 vs Syracuse
- #8 Nebraska -4 at Colorado
- #9 Northwestern bye
- #10 Minnesota -3 at Fresno State
- #11 Illinois -20 at UCONN
- #12 Purdue -7.5 vs Vanderbilt
- #13 Indiana vs Eastern Illinois (no line on worldwide leader right now)
- #14 Rutgers at #6 Iowa
-
Vandy likely has a better shot at 6-6. They get NIU OOC which is a possible loss of course, UNLV, and ETSU. They might be 3-1 OOC.
The get LSU and Ole Miss from the SEC West, so that could be 1-1. Tenn and UK and Mizzou and USCe had less than sparkling outings, so they could go 2-2 there potentially. That presumes they don't upset Florida. That gets them to a minor bowl, even with a loss to Purdue (or UNLV etc.).
But a win at Purdue has them sitting fairly solidly I think. They have some weapons and a half decent defense. That should be an interesting game for two teams in the middle of the pack.
-
I have the Hawks as 20 point favs over Rutgers
pulled off sportsbetting.AG
-
AP Top 25
1. Clemson (54) (1-0)
2. Alabama (8) (1-0)
3. Georgia (1-0)
4. Oklahoma (1-0)
5. Ohio State (1-0)
6. LSU (1-0)
7. Michigan (1-0)
8. Notre Dame (1-0)
9. Texas (1-0)
10. Auburn (1-0)
11. Florida (1-0)
12. Texas A&M (1-0)
13. Utah (1-0)
14. Washington (1-0)
15. Penn State (1-0)
16. Oregon (0-1)
17. Wisconsin (1-0)
18. UCF (1-0)
19. Michigan State (1-0)
20. Iowa (1-0)
21. Syracuse (1-0)
22. Washington State (1-0)
23. Stanford (1-0)
24. Boise State (1-0)
25. Nebraska (1-0)
25. Iowa State (1-0)
-
Coaches Poll
1 Clemson 58 1-0
2 Alabama 6 1-0
3 Georgia 0 1-0
4 Oklahoma 0 1-0
5 Ohio State 0 1-0
6 LSU 0 1-0
7 Michigan 0 1-0
8 Notre Dame 0 1-0
9 Texas 0 1-0
10 Florida 0 1-0
11 Texas A&M 0 1-0
12 Washington 0 1-0
13 Auburn 0 1-0
14 Penn State 0 1-0
15 Utah 0 1-0
16 Wisconsin 0 1-0
17 Central Florida 0 1-0
18 Oregon 0 0-1
19 Iowa 0 1-0
20 Michigan State 0 1-0
21 Washington State 0 1-0
22 Syracuse 0 1-0
23 Stanford 0 1-0
24 Boise State 0 1-0
25 Nebraska 0 1-0
(Dropped out: No. 24 Iowa State; No. 25 Northwestern. Others receiving votes; Mississippi State 92; Cincinnati 49; Iowa State 41; Kentucky 40; Memphis 34; Oklahoma State 32; Virginia 28; Texas Christian 26; Army 24; NC State 18; Miami 11; Southern California 10; Boston College 10; Northwestern 7; Tulane 4; Arizona State 4; Appalachian State 4; Minnesota 3;
-
Lots of smack talking on the Longhorn and LSU message boards. Gonna be a chippy week.
-
Lots of smack talking on the Longhorn and LSU message boards. Gonna be a chippy week.
lots of new debate team members, i see (link for reference (https://twitter.com/GriffinTSmith/status/1167238793864372224/video/1))
-
I don't think there are many Ralphie fans out there, but the Husker fans are looking forward to the game in Boulder this Saturday!!!
-
Rankings are current B1G Power Rankings:
- #1 tOSU -16 vs Cincy
- #2 Michigan -23.5 vs Army
- #3 Wisconsin -35 vs CMU
- #4 Penn State -30 vs Buffalo
- #5 Michigan State -16 vs WMU
- #6 Iowa vs #14 Rutgers (no line on worldwide leader right now)
- #7 Maryland -1.5 vs Syracuse
- #8 Nebraska -4 at Colorado
- #9 Northwestern bye
- #10 Minnesota -3 at Fresno State
- #11 Illinois -20 at UCONN
- #12 Purdue -7.5 vs Vanderbilt
- #13 Indiana vs Eastern Illinois (no line on worldwide leader right now)
- #14 Rutgers at #6 Iowa
I'm ignoring the two games that I don't have a line for (Iowa/RU and IU/EIU) so with NU on a week off and those two games excluded there are 10 games involving B1G teams this weekend. The games sorted by spread (ie, in projected order of competitiveness) are:
- Maryland -1.5 vs Syracuse
- Minnesota -3 at Fresno State
- Nebraska -4 at Colorado
- Purdue -7.5 vs Vanderbilt
- Michigan State -16 vs WMU
- Ohio State -16 vs Cincy
- Illinois -20 at UCONN
- Michigan -23.5 vs Army
- Penn State -30 vs Buffalo
- Wisconsin -35 vs CMU
-
Is Vandy really thought to be that much of a dog in this one? I guess so.
-
we should be rooting for the chalk this week
never works like that, but........
-
Based more on ELA's preseasons rankings than anything else: I didn't expect Maryland to be favored versus Syracuse.
-
The Vols have BYU this week. The Cougars aren't great, but are quite a bit better than Georgia State, I'd imagine.
-
I'll weirdly excited to watch Illinois-UConn. I think Brandon Peters hasn't been talked about enough from Week 1.
-
Why?
You keep up with Syracuse? You know how many people they've lost? How many injuries?
You keep up with Maryland?
Just curious how you believe "they should"?
Good questions. They had a very nice season last year with a fourth-year starting QB. They currently have two NFL defensive ends. But they also played in a much weaker league than our Terps. Had they played our schedule, I don't think they'd be the ten-win media darlings they are now.
Despite the current odds shifting Maryland's way, I would think of it as an upset, probably because of that ranking thing. But we know from experience that it's a lot easier to pile up wins in the ACC (especially these past couple of seasons) than it is when lining up against Ohio State, Michigan, Michigan State and Penn State every Autumn.
-
+1
Texas' coach is an ex-Buckeye, so I watch them and hope they do good.
I root for Maryland in all but one game. I get really frustrated when they get lumped in with Rutgers as not deserving to be in the B1G. Maryland is a great school, with great athletics, they are B1G ten worthy. It's not their fault they got added with the dredges of the East Coast, and that they are playing 4 top 20ish teams each year in football. There is only a handful of teams that can post a winning record against OSU-MSU, PSU and TTUN. (Maybe 3-4 in the SEC, 2 in the ACC, 2 in the B12, and 0-1 in the Pac?) So, I root for Maryland all the time cause I want them to feel wanted by our conference, and winning breeds respect.
Thank you on behalf of Terrapins everywhere.
We know from experience in the ACC that it's hard to accept new members after having a stable league for years. After expansion we were always pining away for the old ACC, but it was nothing personal against the likes of Miami and Virginia Tech, et al.
So I don't take it personally when I hear stuff like "Maryland doesn't belong..." because I always thought the same thing about the expansion teams in the league where my team was a founding member. I can understand the sentiment.
-
I was calling for Maryland (and Virginia) starting about 15-16 years ago on these boards - well before I was calling for Nebraska.
Maryland does make sense, since PSU made sense back in 1990.
-
I think a ten team Big Ten makes sense, but ain't nobody asking me.
-
The world is not a perfect place.
-
I always liked the Huskers as an alternate for Notre Dame as team #12, although I didn't expect much interest on their end with all their Big 6/8/XII history.
It never even occurred to me that we might expand beyond 12 teams.
-
I always liked the Huskers as an alternate for Notre Dame as team #12, although I didn't expect much interest on their end with all their Big 6/8/XII history.
It never even occurred to me that we might expand beyond 12 teams.
When they came up with the new logo (B1G) I figured 16 (1G) was coming eventually.
-
Gross.
I'm not sure I'll watch any college football at all when they hit 16-team conferences.
-
16 will be better - more or less two 8 team conferences with a built-in playoff to the playoff
similar to the old Big 8 with a bowl tie-in
-
The world is not a perfect place.
in a perfect place everyone asks Utee
-
16 will be better - more or less two 8 team conferences with a built-in playoff to the playoff
similar to the old Big 8 with a bowl tie-in
Except nothing like the Big8 because Nebraska will be the only Big8 team in its division/conference.
No thanks.
-
16 will be better - more or less two 8 team conferences with a built-in playoff to the playoff
similar to the old Big 8 with a bowl tie-in
I'm in this camp.
In theory, like @utee94 (https://www.cfb51.com/index.php?action=profile;u=15) said, I'd prefer a 10 team Big Ten but that isn't happening. I thought 12 was ok and I think 16 would be ok, but I feel like 14 is just a temporary stop on the way to 16. Same as @847badgerfan (https://www.cfb51.com/index.php?action=profile;u=5) , when the B1G logo came out I immediately surmised that the "IG" looking suspiciously like "16" was not coincidental.
I like the idea of 16 teams in four pods of four with the pods rotating to form temporary divisions.
I also continue to believe that a big part of the reason to grab Nebraska was to get a fourth "Helmet" along with tOSU, M, and PSU so that each pod would have a Helmet headliner.
Further, the B1G's shunning of Mizzou when they were basically begging for an invite makes it clear to me that the B1G's eyes are turned Eastward not Westward so I continue to believe that the next two members will be from the relatively populous and fast-growing states of Virginia and North Carolina. Then I assume that the Pods and groups will be as follows:
(https://i.imgur.com/gUnEVOG.png)
Each team's annual schedule would be as follows:
- You play the other three teams in your group (for Michigan in Group 1, this would be tOSU, PSU, and UNL).
- You play the other three teams in your pod (for Michigan in the North Pod this would be MSU, PU, and NU).
- You play the remaining three teams in whichever pod your pod is temporarily combined with to form a division.
Suppose that the divisions are North-South and East-West in year 1, Michigan would play:
- tOSU, PSU, UNL
- MSU, PU, NU
- RU, IU, IL
Then in year two the divisions would be North-East and South-West, Michigan would play:
- tOSU, PSU, UNL
- MSU, PU, NU
- UNC, UVA, UMD
Then in year three the divisions would be North-West and South-East, Michigan would play:
- tOSU, PSU, UNL
- MSU, PU, NU
- UW, IA, MN
In six years each team would:
- Host and travel to their three pod-mates three times each. (total of 18 games)
- Host and travel to their three group-mates three times each. (total of 18 games)
- Host and travel to the other nine teams once each. (total of 18 games)
That makes 54 conference games in six years or nine per year and you both host and visit all conference-mates at least once every six years.
What I like about it:
- It would "feel like" your team was in a conference with your six pod-mates and group-mates.
- Your team would never be too far away from playing any other conference team (every third year maximum).
- There is some degree of competitive balance built into the groups. Ie, the Helmets all have to play each other every year so their schedules would typically be harder than the other teams.
What I don't like about it:
- The northernmost team (MN) is in the West pod.
- The easternmost team (RU) is in the South pod.
- The southernmost team (UNC) is in the East pod.
- The aforementioned three issues would make this very easy to make fun of.
-
pods suck
give me 8 teams that play each other every season
you can rotate the cross overs from the other 8 team conference if you like or make some permanent, don't care
7 teams that your team can build traditional rivalries with works
rotating "pods" doesn't do that for me
"the game" is not going away, so the pods rotating doesn't work
-
pods suck
give me 8 teams that play each other every season
you can rotate the cross overs from the other 8 team conference if you like or make some permanent, don't care
7 teams that your team can build traditional rivalries with works
rotating "pods" doesn't do that for me
"the game" is not going away, so the pods rotating doesn't work
My objection to fixed divisions with 16 teams is that you would only play the non-divisional teams very sporadically.
If we assume nine games then you would play your seven division-mates and two cross-divisional teams each year. It would take four years to get through the other division and eight years to host and travel to each of the non-divisional teams. That is just too long to me and it is even worse if you weight the match-ups or have any fixed cross-overs. With the pods and rotating divisions you have some weighting and still play each team every three years.
Each team would still have six teams that they played every year. In your scenario they have seven, that is only a difference of one, is that really a big deal to you?
-
the non-divisional teams are in a different conference like back in the 80's so I don't care if it's very sporadically
and I could see possibly not playing some teams from the other "conference" division at all. Why would Nebraska and Iowa want to play Maryland and Rutgers?
yes, 7 is better than 6. Not a big deal, but I'd rather
this is my dream of getting back to 8 team conferences that pair with another 8-team conference for TV negotiation.
it might never happen, but it's more likely than going back to the 80s
(4) 16-team conferences would get to 64 teams with a path to a 4 team playoff
-
the non-divisional teams are in a different conference like back in the 80's so I don't care if it's very sporadically
and I could see possibly not playing some teams from the other "conference" division at all. Why would Nebraska and Iowa want to play Maryland and Rutgers?
yes, 7 is better than 6. Not a big deal, but I'd rather
this is my dream of getting back to 8 team conferences that pair with another 8-team conference for TV negotiation.
it might never happen, but it's more likely than going back to the 80s
(4) 16-team conferences would get to 64 teams with a path to a 4 team playoff
Maybe the reason we disagree here is that your team already lost all of it's traditional conference-mates and mine hasn't.
Assuming the B1G goes to 16, the two newbies will likely either be both Eastern (like UNC and UVA) or both Western (like OU/TX). As it is now, the E->W listing is:
- Rutgers
- Maryland
- Penn State
- Ohio State
- Michigan
- Michigan State
- Indiana
- Purdue
- Northwestern
- Illinois
- Wisconsin
- Iowa
- Minnesota
- Nebraska
So with two eastern additions the E/W divide would be between MSU and IU and with two western additions the East/West divide would be between Purdue and Northwestern.
In either case the Buckeyes, Wolverines, and Spartans would be permanently severed from longstanding conference-mates including Minnesota, Iowa, Wisconsin, Illinois, and Northwestern. I wouldn't want that. I would want to continue to play the Gophers, Hawkeyes, Badgers, Illini, and Wildcats at least sometimes.
I can completely understand why Nebraska, Minnesota, Iowa, Wisconsin, Illinois, or Northwestern fans wouldn't care whether or not they ever played Rutgers or Maryland or, to a lesser extent Penn State but I think that they, with the possible exception of Nebraska fans, would want to maintain their longstanding relationships with tOSU, M, and MSU.
-
To further illustrate this point, assume we added UVA and UNC and went to permanent E-W divisions. The new B1G-E would be:
- UVA - new
- UNC - new
- Rutgers - started playing B1G football in 2014
- Maryland - started playing B1G football in 2014
- Penn State - started playing B1G football in 1993
- Michigan State - started playing B1G football in 1953
- Michigan - resumed playing B1G football in 1917 (previously played B1G football from 1896-1906)
- Ohio State - started playing B1G football in 1913
The new B1G-W would be:
- Nebraska - started playing B1G football in 2011
- Iowa - started playing B1G football in 1900
- Indiana - started playing B1G football in 1900
- Purdue - charter member, 1896
- Wisconsin - charter member, 1896
- Illinois - charter member, 1896
- Northwestern - charter member, 1896
- Minnesota - charter member, 1896
From my Ohio State fan perspective, my Buckeyes have been competing in a conference with:
- Minnesota, Northwestern, Illinois, Wisconsin, Purdue, Indiana, and Iowa since 1913
- Michigan since 1917
- Michigan State since 1953
- Penn State since 1993
- Nebraska since 2011
- Rutgers and Maryland since 2014
I wouldn't want to completely lose our seven oldest conference-mates.
-
With my pod system, here is a chart of which six teams each team would play every year and which nine teams each team would play twice every six years:
(https://i.imgur.com/UWV007s.png)
My feeling is that it is not perfect for any team because it can't be without screwing things up for some other team but it has the advantage of being not terrible for any team.
For your team, @FearlessF (https://www.cfb51.com/index.php?action=profile;u=10) , the Cornhuskers would get the following every year games:
- Michigan - fellow helmet
- Ohio State - fellow helmet
- Penn State - fellow hlemet
- Wisconsin - geographically close
- Iowa - geographically close
- Minnesota - geographically close and most frequent B1G opponent of the Huskers
Then the Cornhuskers would play these teams twice each six years:
- MSU - no serious history
- RU - no serious history
- UNC - no serious history
- PU - no serious history
- IU - no serious history
- UVA - no serious history
- NU - no serious history
- IL - no serious history
- UMD - no serious history
I see that as near-perfect for the Huskers. Your six most relevant/important B1G rivals would be annual and the nine least important would be twice every six years.
-
That was REALLY small and hard to read. Here it is showing just each team's six every-year opponents:
(https://i.imgur.com/32FhZym.png)
-
No thanks to that.
-
pods suck
give me 8 teams that play each other every season
you can rotate the cross overs from the other 8 team conference if you like or make some permanent, don't care
7 teams that your team can build traditional rivalries with works
rotating "pods" doesn't do that for me
"the game" is not going away, so the pods rotating doesn't work
i'm ok with "pods" so long as we don't call them freakin pods.
i like the 4 div setup, with 1 lock from each other div, which would help keep rivalries intact.
using medina's chart, i'll just use the n/s/e/w as divisions, no need for groups.
(https://i.imgur.com/vxPd64C.png)
3 games - play all div opps. for mich, that'd be msu, purdue, nw.
3 games - 1 lock opp in each other div. for mich, lets say osu (rival), minn (rival), and maryland (no historical rival in this group, just picked one)
3 games - 1 rotating game vs each other div. there are numerous ways to make it so you play all 15 other teams in conference in a 4 year span.
3 games - non-conf games.
this setup preserves rivalries, it balances schedules, it provides opportunity to play all conf members in a 4 year career at least once. it's got issues, but it also solves a lot of the problems we have with the current conf setups. it's a pretty good setup, imo.
-
i'm ok with "pods" so long as we don't call them freakin pods.
that would help, but I'm trying to get back to 8,9, or 10 team "groups" that play each other round robin each season
7, 8, or 9 conference games will work
more or less don't
-
Maybe the reason we disagree here is that your team already lost all of it's traditional conference-mates and mine hasn't.
nah, that's not it.
If I could pick my perfect 9 or 10 team conference for the Huskers it wouldn't include all old Big 8 schools
going forward I would like traditional conference mates, rivals to play each other each season. At least 7 of those games, 8 or 9 would be better
develop a tradition
-
This discussion pretty much proves my point.
No matter how you attempt to manage it, scheduling for a conference with 16 teams is going to leave a large group of fans unhappy. It's a bad number. It's just too big. So is 14. 12 isn't quite as bad but 8,9,10 is ideal.
-
This discussion pretty much proves my point.
No matter how you attempt to manage it, scheduling for a conference with 16 teams is going to leave a large group of fans unhappy. It's a bad number. It's just too big. So is 14. 12 isn't quite as bad but 8,9,10 is ideal.
Fundamentally, I agree. With a nine game schedule like we have now, I think that a 10-team conference would be best. Then you'd play each of your nine conference-mates once each.
I thought that 12 teams with eight or nine conference games was not too bad. You have five division-mates that you play every year and either three or four crossovers. Three on an eight-game schedule works nicely because it is half so you play the non-divisional teams twice every four years. With nine games you can either add fixed cross-overs or balance schedules or both and still play every team twice in four years.
I really don't like the 14 team model. Even with nine games, you only have two three cross-overs each year which means it takes longer to rotate through the non-divisional teams. Then, on top of that, we decided to do this schedule balancing thing so that it just "feels like" my team never plays certain B1G-W teams anymore. Here are tOSU's most recent and next games against each B1G-W team:
- Northwestern: Last was 2016 Home, scheduled in 2019 Away
- Nebraska: Last was 2018 Home, scheduled in 2019 Away, 2020 Home, 2021 Away
- Wisconsin: Last was 2016 Away, scheduled in 2019 Home
- Illinois: Last was 2017 Home, scheduled in 2020 Away
- Iowa: Last was 2017 Away, scheduled in 2020 Home
- Minnesota: Last was 2018 Home, scheduled in 2021 Away
- Purdue: Last was 2018 Away, scheduled in 2021 Home
So the gaps now are two years, for Ohio State:
- Missed NU and UW in 2017 and 2018
- Will miss IL and IA in 2018 and 2019
- Will miss PU and MN in 2019 and 2020
With my 16-team, 4-pod, 4-group model we'd have the exact same gaps but we'd play, I think, a better group of six every-year opponents.
It isn't perfect. Like you, I prefer a 10-team conference with nine games or a nine-team conference with eight games (like the ACC used to be). That said, I'm trying to be realistic about two things:
- We aren't going back to the pre-Penn State 10-team BigTen of 1953-1992. It just isn't happening.
- As @847badgerfan (https://www.cfb51.com/index.php?action=profile;u=5) and I noted above, the fact that the "1G" in the current B1G logo looks a lot like a "16" can't be coincidental.
Basically, I'm operating under the assumption that we ARE going to 16 teams whether I like it or not. Taking that as a given, I think that the best scheduling model with a 16-team conference is a 4-pod, 4-group model where you play your three pod-mates and your three group-mates every year. I'd also add that I would make all or most of those six teams your twice-a-year basketball rivals as well. I want it to "feel like" a team is in a conference with those six every-year football opponents.
-
I think Marshall-Boise on Friday night is sneaky intriguing. If G5 had “blue bloods” both of these schools would qualify. Boise’s reputation is well known but since entering the FBS ranks in 1997 Marshall has eight 10 win seasons in its own right.
If they’ve ever met I can’t remember it so adds to the interest level for me.
-
The factors at play in 2010 and 2011, driving conference expansion, are diminishing in importance with every passing day. I'm not certain there is much impetus to push to 16 at this point, for any conference. And as illustrated from this discussion, there are plenty of reasons NOT to do so.
-
I think Marshall-Boise on Friday night is sneaky intriguing. If G5 had “blue bloods” both of these schools would qualify. Boise’s reputation is well known but since entering the FBS ranks in 1997 Marshall has eight 10 win seasons in its own right.
If they’ve ever met I can’t remember it so adds to the interest level for me.
Agree, these are a couple of "newbloods" and it should be an interesting game.
-
Two lines surprise me here, Maryland and Syracuse, and Vandy at Purdue. I'd probably favor the Cues and have the second game close to even.
And, I'm probably wrong of course. The lines are quite good on average, which probably is why they exist.
-
I think Marshall-Boise on Friday night is sneaky intriguing. If G5 had “blue bloods” both of these schools would qualify. Boise’s reputation is well known but since entering the FBS ranks in 1997 Marshall has eight 10 win seasons in its own right.
If they’ve ever met I can’t remember it so adds to the interest level for me.
Since 1996, when Boise State entered Division I, they have not played Marshall.
http://www.jhowell.net/cf/scores/BoiseState.htm (http://www.jhowell.net/cf/scores/BoiseState.htm)
-
Since 1996, when Boise State entered Division I, they have not played Marshall.
http://www.jhowell.net/cf/scores/BoiseState.htm (http://www.jhowell.net/cf/scores/BoiseState.htm)
Yeah, I didn’t think they had because I think I would remember if they did. I sorta halfway keep an eye on what they do in Huntington and a game with Boise would have intrigued me (like it does now). I’m not exactly sure what either team has yet but there are years this game could have been for the Pretend G5 National Championship.
-
In their only previous meeting, Boise defeated Marshall 26-24 in a 1994 1AA Semifinal.
Boise then went onto get doubled up by Jim Tressel's Youngstown State team in the NCG.
-
In fact looking at that season, the old 1AA bracket essentially was a G5 playoff, by today's standards.
Marshall's lone blemish during the regular season was at the hands of Appalachian State. In the playoffs they knocked off Middle Tennessee and James Madison, before falling to Boise St.
Boise St knocked off #1 Montana and #3 Idaho in the final three weeks of the regular season. Then in the playoffs they beat North Texas, Appalachian State and Marshall before getting Tressel balled into oblivion by the Penguins. Their lone blemish before the NCG debacle was kind of a stunning 1 point road loss vs the lowly Idaho State Bengals.
-
The factors at play in 2010 and 2011, driving conference expansion, are diminishing in importance with every passing day. I'm not certain there is much impetus to push to 16 at this point, for any conference. And as illustrated from this discussion, there are plenty of reasons NOT to do so.
money will always be the evil driver of expansion
if the PAC gets left out of the big $$$ - outdistanced by the SEC and/or the B1G
USC and UCLA will do something to close the gap
-
money will always be the evil driver of expansion
if the PAC gets left out of the big $$$ - outdistanced by the SEC and/or the B1G
USC and UCLA will do something to close the gap
Money will definitely drive it.
But expansion for cable subscriber footprints is no longer going to be such an important factor. Many new and interesting routes to market are coming available, and many of the most important target customers aren't consuming the product anywhere close to the same way they were even 6-8 years ago.
That's the type of thing I'm talking about.
-
we've discussed this many times
it's about content, not the delivery method
if the PAC doesn't have the content, they won't make the same amount of money. That's what's happening today. That's why the PAC lags behind the other conferences.
If that gap gets wide enough, the big boys such as USC and UCLA will find a way to maximize their content. This will mean not watering it down with Washington St, Oregon St., Colorado, Utah, and the Arizona programs
-
we've discussed this many times
it's about content, not the delivery method
if the PAC doesn't have the content, they won't make the same amount of money. That's what's happening today. That's why the PAC lags behind the other conferences.
If that gap gets wide enough, the big boys such as USC and UCLA will find a way to maximize their content. This will mean not watering it down with Washington St, Oregon St., Colorado, Utah, and the Arizona programs
It's about both, because right now the big gap for B1G is the forced payments from non-viewers as a result of the cable subscriber model. That has nothing to do with content and everything to do with the cable subscriber model delivery method.
As that cable subscriber model vanishes, so will that big gap. And when that gap diminishes, teams like UCLA and USC won't feel as much pressure to make a change.
-
you are right about that, as the generation turns over fewer folks will pay for content they don't watch.
this will simply mean that sports fans will pay much more
I think the gap will remain, because of content value.
-
you are right about that, as the generation turns over fewer folks will pay for content they don't watch.
this will simply mean that sports fans will pay much more
I think the gap will remain, because of content value.
The gap isn't really in the first or second tier, it's in the 3rd. And that third tier content is currently overvalued because of the forced-payment cable subscriber model. It's the delivery model that's causing the issue, not the content. As that model disappears, so will the revenue from it, and so will the gap.
On a per-view basis, I agree that the sports fan will pay more. It's inevitable, without all of the non-watchers being forced to subsidize the sports fan's viewing choices.
The good news is, the sports fan will have a lot more options in specificity and variety and delivery of that content. Ultimately if you care most about watching the Huskers and don't care that much about watching Virginia or Tennessee, you'll probably be able to pay less than you do currently.
-
it's going to be bad for sports and college football
the greed of the folks selling content will skyrocket prices and that will cause folks to watch less
today Husker fans watch Virginia and Tennessee, in the future they will not
Athletic department revenues are almost certain to drop, this will cause issues
-
Everything is gonna be different in 20-30 years. Some of us might not even be around to notice.
-
true
-
that would help, but I'm trying to get back to 8,9, or 10 team "groups" that play each other round robin each season
7, 8, or 9 conference games will work
more or less don't
with my example, you'd have 6 locked conference opponents, with 3 rotating. it's not perfect, but it's best way for a 16 team league, imo.
This discussion pretty much proves my point.
No matter how you attempt to manage it, scheduling for a conference with 16 teams is going to leave a large group of fans unhappy. It's a bad number. It's just too big. So is 14. 12 isn't quite as bad but 8,9,10 is ideal.
i don't disagree, it's just unlikely to happen anytime soon. so might as well deal with reality (or likely events) rather than wishful thinking.
i like 12, tbh, although the sec was dumb in how they implemented it. need 9 conf games for it to work well, imo.
-
with my example, you'd have 6 locked conference opponents, with 3 rotating. it's not perfect, but it's best way for a 16 team league, imo.
ya just gotta think of it as (2) 8-team conferences
the only time there absolutely has to be a cross-over game is the CCG at the end of the season
8 locked conference members - 7 conference games
if ya want a few rotating games with the teams in the other division, that's great, but not required
-
Everything is gonna be different in 20-30 years. Some of us might not even be around to notice.
Not just in football.
-
On my guide it says ESPNU is showing "OSU vs Cincinnati From Nipert (Bearcats) Stadium" so I clicked on it expecting to see some ancient leather helmet action, but instead it was the 2002 game from Paul Brown (Bengals) stadium.
-
Based more on ELA's preseasons rankings than anything else: I didn't expect Maryland to be favored versus Syracuse.
Maryland's average recruiting classes over the last 4 years is 32.
Syracuse's average recruiting classes over the last 4 years is 56.
-
On my guide it says ESPNU is showing "OSU vs Cincinnati From Nipert (Bearcats) Stadium" so I clicked on it expecting to see some ancient leather helmet action, but instead it was the 2002 game from Paul Brown (Bengals) stadium.
The game winning drive for OSU began after a Gino Guidulgi fumble where he was looking all the way to his left in the pocket, and Darian Scott came unblocked up the other side and just decleated him. Crown of the helmet right to the earhole. Gino goes one way, ball goes the other. Dude never even saw it coming.
Today it would have been like a fifty yard penalty, and a 5 game ejection. Back then they were all like "OHHH, he gets a free shot on the quarterback!"
I miss tackle football.
-
I'm in this camp.
(https://i.imgur.com/gUnEVOG.png)
What I don't like about it:
- The northernmost team (MN) is in the West pod.
- The easternmost team (RU) is in the South pod.
- The southernmost team (UNC) is in the East pod.
- The aforementioned three issues would make this very easy to make fun of.
Virginia Tech is a Football Upgrade over Virginia. I would much rather have them. (And hold they hold their own in other "Business Metrics" fans have hypothesized matter.) Tech fans are also less loyal to the ACC, my small sample size of fans they really only wanted to get a rivalry with The Cavaliers (and didn't want the ACC to go away.)
B1G should Apologize for skipping out on Mizzou in the last round, and see if they will come back to the light side. Replace North Carolina with them and your geographic pods make much more sense. Also North Carolina is the "heart" of the ACC, and again small sample size, but no one I know from NC wants anything to do with the B1G or it's media dollars.
East - PSU, Rutgers, Maryland, VIRGINIA TECH
West - Nebraska, Wisconsin, Iowa, Minnesota
North - TTUN, MSU, Nebraska, Purdue
South - OSU, MISSOURI, Indiana, Illinois
-
I love Blacksburg -- beautiful and a true original. Otherwise, VaTech is a "fair" football program and great school. UVa, meanwhile, is a less than fair football program and upper echelon research university. At first blush, maybe that makes it seem like a toss-up, but it really isn't. Maybe if VaTech were an elite level football program, this would be a harder decision. As is, UVa wins going away. Not for fans, but for the actual voters (the presidents).
No matter the football money a(n independent) athletic department brings in -- let's say we're talking about the Alabama, Texas, aTm, Michigan, OSU levels of football money -- the research money that the average Big Ten school reels in is a significantly larger thing. It might even be 10-to-1. And that makes it a good bet that even the most athletically-minded Big Ten president cares more about his school's mega-research complex and the uppage in grant funding they might expect when picking the right school facilitates the right collaborations. It would take adding a helmet school to maybe override that.
-
I love Blacksburg -- beautiful and a true original. Otherwise, VaTech is a "fair" football program and great school. UVa, meanwhile, is a less than fair football program and upper echelon research university. At first blush, maybe that makes it seem like a toss-up, but it really isn't. Maybe if VaTech were an elite level football program, this would be a harder decision. As is, UVa wins going away. Not for fans, but for the actual voters (the presidents).
No matter the football money a(n independent) athletic department brings in -- let's say we're talking about the Alabama, Texas, aTm, Michigan, OSU levels of football money -- the research money that the average Big Ten school reels in is a significantly larger thing. It might even be 10-to-1. And that makes it a good bet that even the most athletically-minded Big Ten president cares more about his school's mega-research complex and the uppage in grant funding they might expect when picking the right school facilitates the right collaborations. It would take adding a helmet school to maybe override that.
I disagree.
https://mup.umass.edu/sites/default/files/annual_report_2017.pdf
T (https://mup.umass.edu/sites/default/files/annual_report_2017.pdf)his shows Virginia as 25th in Research and VT as 32, and that VT is actually bringing in more research dollars than UV.
UV is a top undergraduate university (more of a fit with the ACC) VT has improved their research status exponentially over the last 5 years (Some say to gain AAU status, and make their bid to the B1G application more appealing.)
-
Based more on ELA's preseasons rankings than anything else: I didn't expect Maryland to be favored versus Syracuse.
I think ELA had both Maryland and Rutgers as 0-12.;)