CFB51 College Football Fan Community
The Power Five => Big Ten => Topic started by: OrangeAfroMan on April 19, 2022, 10:28:59 PM
-
From an ESPN article I actually liked, mislabeled a superconference - the P5 breaking away from the G5.
I didn't know these particulars, so it's nice to learn something -
.
back in the 70s and into the 80s, Division 1 football had swelled to 140 schools. Some conferences, including the Ivy League, were part of the have-nots, and went down to 1-AA (a split).
.
With 2 new schools moving up (Jacksonville St and Sam Houston St), FBS will be at 133 schools.
The idea I like from the article is just the P5 conferences splitting away. With the newly-expanded Big 12 teams getting in under the wire, plus ND and BYU, that'd be 70 schools.
.
70 schools to mainly play each other, only 70 to keep track of and worry about and that have a chance at a national championship (like now, only without the big lie about the others having any shot).
.
Beyond that, there could be another separation, perhaps among the SEC + B1G + some invitation-only others. That'd be around 40-42 schools at the top level.
.
Maybe it's just my stupidity, but I hadn't ever connected the split back in the 70s to what may be occurring in the not-so-distant future here.
Any thoughs?
-
It's coming. The main question I have is your mid-to-low-tier teams. Do you abandon Vandy, Wake, K-State? (I'm trying to think which B1G team would be there, but none is really popping. IU maybe?)
The funny thing is, that split potentially causes more issues down the line. In truth, it's a feature, not a bug that team that finishes with the 13th-worst record in the SEC is at the level of getting a little prize. No one is happy with that, but they're much happier than if they went 3-9. And a more consolidated sport means more 3-9s.
It's also interesting that there weren't that many more conferences. Only four more than now, two more than a decade ago. But you had more than 30 independents, vs 4 now.
-
Ivy League
Missouri Valley Conf - NMST, Tulsa, S.Illinois, Drake, Indiana St, Wichita St, W.Texas A&M
Pacific Coast Athletic Assoc - San Jose St, Utah St, Pacific, CS-Fullerton, Long Beach St, Fresno St
Southern - Furman, Chattanooga, App St, W.Carolina, Citadel, VMI, Marshall
Southland - LA Tech, Ark St, Texas-Arlington, McNeese St, Louisiana, Lamar
Independents - Holy Cross, William & Mary, N'Western St, Villanova, Colgate, Richmond, Illinois St
.
Some of these worked their way back up to Div 1-A (FBS), but I'm looking at it like the sport was perfectly fine having these programs drop down a peg. Doing the same now wouldn't harm the sport, which is what our concern should be. Whether or not Akron or Troy or UNLV can maintain it's role as a struggling, middling, irrelevant football program shouldn't be a deciding factor.
-
What would be the advantage of another split?
-
What would be the advantage of another split?
Better games for the fans.
-
How would this impact scheduling? P5 teams couldn't schedule G5 teams any more?
Seems like a division that already exists really, with no substantive impact I can discern.
-
I would like to see 6 conferences - each with 11 schools.
No CCG needed as everyone plays everyone else in conference.
3 games OOC, and only one dip down game is allowed.
East Coast - Led by PSU and ND (add RU, UMd, BC, Pitt, WVU, VT, Cuse, Louisville, Cincy)
B1G - Led by UM and OSU (B1G - PSU, RU and UMd)
SEC - Led by Bama and Florida (SEC - Ark, aTm, Mizzou)
Big 11 - Led by Texas and OU (old Big 12 - Baylor and Tech/KSU, add Ark)
ACC - Led by Clemson and FSU (old ACC - Wake)
PAC 11 - Led by USC and UCLA (old Pac 12 - O/Wsu. Pick one)
-
East Coast Conference:
Penn State
Notre Dame
Rutgers
Maryland
Boston College
Pittsburgh
West Virginia
Virginia Tech
Syracuse
Louisville
Cincinnati
-
Better games for the fans.
Ya I'm not so sure remember the kerfluffle when Miami,VTech and BC left the Big East and Joined the ACC and all the arms were up in the air.A new super football conference everyone opined.With grid iron giants Miami,Seminoles and seemingly VTech emerging.Well those posers fell on their faces football wise and lowly Clemson and Dabo emerged. So I submit to you council of elders do we really want more Dabos?
-
Teams still schedule "Div 1-AA" opponents, I don't see this kind of change would alter scheduling at all.
It seems like paperwork, unless I'm missing something.
-
No more FCS/1-AA games. 10 conference games, 2 P5 OOC games minimum. Only one G5 game allowed.
-
OK, but just splitting FBS further doesn't do any of that, it's just paperwork, unless one adds new rules.
-
I added the new rules. It's done.
-
I think your math may be off.
-
Every school plays 13 games.
11 schools in a conference allows for 10 conference games. Then you have 3 OOC games - with a minimum 2 against P5 schools.
-
OK, you could do all of that without breaking down FBS further.
I'd go for just ten P5 games total, I like conference CGs myself. But I'd enjoy it all either way.
-
I know people like the CCG and the money it generates from TV. My view is that if you have more desirable matchups over the course of the entire season, TV will pay more for that content. 13 games for all schools, rather than 13 games for 10 schools.
I'm sure most would agree that a Rutgers-MSU game is far more desirable than Rutgers-Temple, and worth a lot more money to advertisers.
I would be ecstatic to see my school play the entire B1G every year. Instead, we are fed this crap.
(https://i.imgur.com/vMxcn8F.png)
-
I would also love to have this logo back:
(https://i.imgur.com/louJVP6.png)
-
Most things I hope for are at least marginally realistic in terms of having a chance to actually happen.
-
Bigger is not better.
My deal is not going to happen. It's a dream, at best, to get back to college football as a grew up loving. Can't say I love it anymore. I like it still, but not like before.
-
Better games for the fans.
More losses for their teams, too.
(not that that’s a bad thing, but it’s an attitude adjustment most won’t make)
-
Well, I'd rather lose to Michigan than beat Maryland.
-
I added the new rules. It's done.
Finish that Iowa Great Lake and I'll 2nd that motion
-
Well, I'd rather lose to Michigan than beat Maryland.
That that back,like right now,before Mdot sees it
-
Well, I'd rather lose to Michigan than beat Maryland.
Alas, being happier with honorable losses and worse records is a minority opinion.
-
Ya I'm not so sure remember the kerfluffle when Miami,VTech and BC left the Big East and Joined the ACC and all the arms were up in the air.A new super football conference everyone opined.With grid iron giants Miami,Seminoles and seemingly VTech emerging.
Uhh, who opined that???
-
Teams still schedule "Div 1-AA" opponents, I don't see this kind of change would alter scheduling at all.
It seems like paperwork, unless I'm missing something.
Under this model, you'd have 3 tiers instead of 2. I'll use the current names to avoid confusion.
FCS teams would be the lowest rung. They can no longer play P5 teams.
G5 teams are the middle rung, and can play 1 level up (P5) or down (FCS), with a majority of games being against each other (G5).
P5 teams are the top rung, and can only schedule down to G5, and you could legislate a limit on that.
.
So the paperwork would be on top of a net benefit of no P5 teams playing any current FCS teams. As fans, I think that's a huge plus.
-
Bigger is not better.
My deal is not going to happen. It's a dream, at best, to get back to college football as a grew up loving. Can't say I love it anymore. I like it still, but not like before.
The weird thing is that for the 11-team conferences thing to actually happen, you'd have to root for continued growth to 22-team conferences of two 11-team divisions. That's wacky, but still more realistic than conferences voluntarily contracting.
.
We could do it with 66 teams - 3 super-conferences of 22.....and all we'd have to do is ignore the 4 new Big 12 additions. That'd be 66.
.
The 3 conferences could sign a mega-TV deal and split al the money evenly. The PAC+Big 12 incarnation, with the B1G and SEC splitting the ACC. The PAC is in a weird spot.....it's actually sort of saved by its geography. It's surviving this recent bout of irrelevance and is always included in future scenarios.
-
I would be ecstatic to see my school play the entire B1G every year. Instead, we are fed this crap.
(https://i.imgur.com/vMxcn8F.png)
Blame your AD
-
The late-90s Big 10 eleven teams could be a special division. None of the other conferences have a special 11, exactly. The SEC was at 10 for a long time, the Pac was at 8, then 10, then 12. BUT - CU could be 'odd man out' as switching divisions would put them back with some old Big 8 brethren.
.
From the ACC, you'd have the AAU members vying for B1G entry and the ones valuing football dollars happy with an SEC invite. It would all work out nicely.
-
Big 10 (11) but really 22:
UM, MSU, OSU, PSU, IU, PU, Illini, NW, Wis, Minn, Iowa
UNL, Pitt, Duke, GT, UNC, UVa, RU, UMd, ND, Syr, BC
.
SEC
A&M, Texas, OU, LSU, Ark, Miz, OM, MSU, Ala, Aub, FSU
Fla, UGA, Miami, USCe, UK, Van, Tenn, VT, NCST, Clem, NCST
.
The Big West Coast and Mountain and yet Plains Conference:
UW, WSU, UO, ORST, Cal, Stan, USC, UCLA, UA, ASU, Utah
CU, BYU, TTU, KU, TCU, Bay, OKST, KSU, ISU, UH, WV, Cinci
.
So here, the biggest loser is probably Louisville. Wake is dropped. UCF's big plans are over. But those are some minor snubs, no?
.
Also in this scenario, I see the Big 10-11-22 and the SEC saying, "yeah, no, we're not sharing the giant pool of money with you anymore, Big West" about 15 years down the line. And you'd have another schism, with the 2 monsters poaching the prettiest pieces of the Big West's sinking ship. More expansion and an adieu to your 11-team divisions.
-
Each division would be it's own thing, in essence. They'd play all 10 in their division, 1 or a max of 2 from the other division, then whatever OOC games left for the schedule (1 or 2).
.
By "advancing" this far forward, you'd get what badge yearns for AND a very regional format again.
The old Big Ten11, a new Big Ten22, the old SEC, a new SECACC, the old Pac-10, a new frankenstein monster.
.
Fun.
-
Uhh, who opined that???
Many at the time the Noles and Canes where in the hardware discussion every year.BC & VT were on the upswing.VTech won the conference the 1st year,won the Coastal Division the Next year losing to the Noles for the Championship.Finished in the the top ten a couple of times,Noles & Canes uncharacteristicly started sliding after nearly 2 decades of dominance.Point being attempting to build the perfect beast of a conference doesn't mean it's going to happen
-
I heard nothing like that at all. The residual predictions I recall that didn't turn out to happen were that FSU and Miami would meet in the ACC CG every year. I don't remember one mention of how strong the ACC suddenly would be.
-
Yes - What conference (at the time) based on recent resume had 1-2 punch like that,however it didn't materialize
-
I'm not saying you're wrong, I just didn't hear it, and I was living in FL at the time.
.
Miami was elite then, but FSU averaged 4 losses per season the 3 years before the ACC expanded. They were both expected to kick ass IN the ACC, but with that being the expectation, that would suggest the attitude was that it wasn't a deep conference, and thus, not an especially strong one.
No?
-
The late-90s Big 10 eleven teams could be a special division. None of the other conferences have a special 11, exactly. The SEC was at 10 for a long time, the Pac was at 8, then 10, then 12. BUT - CU could be 'odd man out' as switching divisions would put them back with some old Big 8 brethren.
.
From the ACC, you'd have the AAU members vying for B1G entry and the ones valuing football dollars happy with an SEC invite. It would all work out nicely.
No thanks to the ACC schools.
-
No thanks to the ACC schools.
Who then? If it came out that the B1G invited 2 schools not named ND, who would your preference be? Kansas? Texas? Florida?
-
If 66 is too many, and you think it'd be more exclusive, it could just be a 16-team SEC, 16-team B1G (with ND and Pitt) and a 16-team "others," which would be geographically stupid.
SEC w/ Texas + OU
B1G + ND + Pitt
Hodge-Podge Conf w/ some PAC, Big 12, and ACC teams.
-
Who then? If it came out that the B1G invited 2 schools not named ND, who would your preference be? Kansas? Texas? Florida?
If I had to take two?
USC and Stanford.
-
Fcs has a wider chasm between the top and the bottom than Fbs does. So you'd have to split that up too. Then there'd be four levels instead of two levels. Meh.
Fwiw, The Ivy League initially stayed FBS until the early 80s
-
There's already more than 4 levels, with Div II, III, and even NAIA (if it still exists). The number of levels growing is not an issue.
-
The point of levels is obviously far less important than scheduling rules.
-
There's already more than 4 levels, with Div II, III, and even NAIA (if it still exists). The number of levels growing is not an issue.
it still exits - Morningside College from Sioux City IA
Morningside Wins Third NAIA National Championship in Last Four Years
Dec 18, 2021
DURHAM, N.C.—Morningside overcame two different seven-point deficits and three turnovers to score the final 17 points of the NAIA Football National Championship to win its third title in four years.
The Mustangs finished the year with a perfect 14-0 record after defeating Grand View 38-28.
“It was tough, but the guys kept playing,” said coach Steve Ryan. “We struggled with turnovers in the first half and our defense came out and played lights-out in the second half.”
Grand View (14-1) forced a three-and-out to start the third quarter, then blocked the punt to take over at the Morningside 5-yard line. Ali Scott’s second touchdown run of the game put the Vikings up 28-21 with 12:25 left in the third.
Morningside used a 15-play, 82-yard drive that chewed up 6:25 of the third quarter to tie the game at 28 on Anthony Sims’ third touchdown run of the game from four yards out.
Sims was the Offensive Player of the Game finishing with 145 rushing yards on 27 carries.
-
There was an all around reclassification in 78. The Big Sky went from being a hybrid D1/D2 conference to 1AA across the board, for example.
-
So do you guys think the number of teams in any given season that have a reasonable chance at the national championship has varied greatly? Say....early 80s, when there were so many stronger independent teams......if we'd say there's only around 40-50 teams today (basically P5 teams that if they went undefeated, they'd be a top 2 or top 4 team, so not Wake Forest or Kansas, etc).
.
Were there more in 1982? Fewer? What about 1973? I mean shit, Penn State went undefeated 4 times without a NC. I realize that program increased in prestige over time, but still. There were fewer P5 programs outside of the independents, if that makes sense.....smaller conferences is probably more accurate.
.
Obviously, each individual season can be luck of the draw. In 1983, Miami happens to have a rogue wave 10-1 season. Luckily, that got them up to 5th in the polls. And they get a shot vs #1. They actually win, and thanks to some crazy shit above them in the polls, they wind up #1. How many other seasons could that have happened? So going back far enough, Miami wouldnt have had a reasonable shot.....but their first actuality came in an unreasonable way. I guess I"m going off on a tangent there.....
.
Back to the question - is the 40-50 number of teams with a real shot at the NC fairly static or is it widely fluid? Does it edge one way or the other over time?
-
So do you guys think the number of teams in any given season that have a reasonable chance at the national championship has varied greatly? Say....early 80s, when there were so many stronger independent teams......if we'd say there's only around 40-50 teams today (basically P5 teams that if they went undefeated, they'd be a top 2 or top 4 team, so not Wake Forest or Kansas, etc).
I'm confused by the bottom part.
You're saying that if Wake or Kansas went 13-0, they wouldn't be top-4 teams?
-
I'm confused by the bottom part.
You're saying that if Wake or Kansas went 13-0, they wouldn't be top-4 teams?
In an average year, where there's 4+ undefeated or 1-loss helmet teams, no, I don't think they would.
.
2014 Committee Ranking:
12-1 Bama
12-1 Oregon
13-0 FSU
12-1 Ohio St
11-1 Baylor
11-1 TCU
So say Wake goes 13-0. IF, IF they're ranked above a 12-1 defending NC FSU, they're not ahead of 12-1 OSU. Are they ahead of the Big 12 pair, given that those 2 were top 13 teams in the committee's initial ranking?
.
2015
13-0 Clemson
12-1 Bama
12-1 MSU
11-1 OU
12-1 Iowa
11-2 Stanford
11-1 Ohio St
Where is a 13-0 Wake ranked here? I don't think they get ahead of a 12-1 Clemson, even with a h2h win over them.
.
I could be absolutely wrong, but I'm afraid I'm not. Again, this is about having a realistic, >50% chance at a NC if you have a special season.
-
Kansas would have made it under the two team format if they didn't blow the Mizzou game.
-
In an average year, where there's 4+ undefeated or 1-loss helmet teams, no, I don't think they would.
.
2014 Committee Ranking:
12-1 Bama
12-1 Oregon
13-0 FSU
12-1 Ohio St
11-1 Baylor
11-1 TCU
So say Wake goes 13-0. IF, IF they're ranked above a 12-1 defending NC FSU, they're not ahead of 12-1 OSU. Are they ahead of the Big 12 pair, given that those 2 were top 13 teams in the committee's initial ranking?
.
2015
13-0 Clemson
12-1 Bama
12-1 MSU
11-1 OU
12-1 Iowa
11-2 Stanford
11-1 Ohio St
Where is a 13-0 Wake ranked here? I don't think they get ahead of a 12-1 Clemson, even with a h2h win over them.
.
I could be absolutely wrong, but I'm afraid I'm not. Again, this is about having a realistic, >50% chance at a NC if you have a special season.
Yeah, they're not keeping out a 13-0 P5 conference champ so four one-loss teams can go to the playoff. Pretending that's the case is deeply silly.
Especially when one of those conference champs is the team they beat to win the conference champ. In the first case, FSU is out. That team was hanging on by a thread. In the second one, Clemson would've been out, which woulda been rough, as we all kinda knew they were better than OU, but them's the breaks.
In the modern era, if you win a P5 conference with no losses, you'll go to the playoff. And in the old era, if you won a P6 conference with no losses, you were at the mercy of how many undefeated teams there were. That very likely won't change.
-
Cincinnati made it. A G5 obviously CAN make it.
-
Kansas would have made it under the two team format if they didn't blow the Mizzou game.
I'm not sure 2007 should be an example of anything.
-
Yeah, they're not keeping out a 13-0 P5 conference champ so four one-loss teams can go to the playoff. Pretending that's the case is deeply silly.
Especially when one of those conference champs is the team they beat to win the conference champ. In the first case, FSU is out. That team was hanging on by a thread. In the second one, Clemson would've been out, which woulda been rough, as we all kinda knew they were better than OU, but them's the breaks.
In the modern era, if you win a P5 conference with no losses, you'll go to the playoff. And in the old era, if you won a P6 conference with no losses, you were at the mercy of how many undefeated teams there were. That very likely won't change.
You're probably right in the playoff era.
And with the mindset of the voters going back further, probably right again.
.
I may have been combining a BCS-era only 2 teams playing for it situation with the recent voters' having a more nuanced way of ranking teams, rather than solely by number of losses.
-
I'm not sure 2007 should be an example of anything.
Why not? It proves that the scenario can happen, and that It happened as recently as 2007.
-
Because it's not useful to focus on the exceptions.....the first definition of "example": a thing characteristic of its kind or illustrating a general rule.
.
2007 is not that.
-
It is useful to explore the possibilities, and to shine a spotlight on the general ass hattery of a guy suggesting that a team can't make a four team field when they almost made a two team field in the not too distant past.
-
Here, I'll concede the point - if a singularly-unique season unfolds in which all the other major players have 2+ losses, then yes, I am wrong.
Congrats.
LOL, you petty shit.
-
(https://scontent-dfw5-2.xx.fbcdn.net/v/t39.30808-6/279315457_4988498834575477_3956898709371765974_n.jpg?stp=dst-jpg_s960x960&_nc_cat=108&ccb=1-5&_nc_sid=730e14&_nc_ohc=EFfumw9lXIEAX9pcRdl&_nc_ht=scontent-dfw5-2.xx&oh=00_AT_ll7m3n7dqkdENQgAQE5JPWqmPtk_YMCKaebLPD1LWCg&oe=626F3283)
-
Winning 3 out of 4 doesn't sound all that tough until you consider how much ground you have to make up after a 5-5 kind of year.