CFB51 College Football Fan Community
The Power Five => Big Ten => Topic started by: 847badgerfan on March 12, 2018, 10:51:45 AM
-
A couple of posts in ELA's ranking thread got me thinking a little bit about this. It's time for the P5 to break away from the NCAA and form its own rules and enforcement wing. Right now there are 5 conferences and 1 (or 2) prominent independents.
My proposal has long been for 11 school conferences and that won't change here. My proposal has also been for the conferences to play a full round-robin schedule and also play 3 OOC games, leading into the conference season schedule.
For the Big Ten, I propose Penn State to leave and anchor an Eastern Conference, which should have happened in the 1980's, when JoePa wanted it to happen. PSU can take Maryland and Rutgers with them, along with the NYC "market" that is "controlled" by Rutgers. Nebraska stays in the fold as a truly Midwestern school. Notre Dame will not get an invitation this time around.
For the record, I love having PSU in the conference and have since they joined. But this is for the greater good of college football, so that's my focus here.
Now, how to divide the other leagues is the question. I'll focus on that over the coming days.
I'll listen to all contributions too. This is a democracy, CFB51 is.
-
I think it is reasonably plausible that the P5 may break away and do their own thing. However, I find it incredibly unlikely that there will be a major conference realignment that involves booting members such as PSU. I could see the B12 booting some of their dead wood but I can't imagine a scenario in which PSU chose to leave the financial security of the B1G or in which the B1G decided to kick them out.
This may be interesting in theory, but as discussion items I'm more interested in plausible items like which two teams will the B1G add to get to 16. I know that you don't like that idea and I'm not completely thrilled with it either but I think it is a LOT more likely than booting PSU.
-
It's not a matter of booting PSU, but rather a matter of all of the schools doing what's best for the game moving forward.
-
My post is strict fantasy, but I kind of like the idea.
What if we went to eight-team conferences, kicked out the service academies, but kept BYU and Notre Dame, and went close to strictly geographic while still trying to maintain regional characteristics (I swapped ND and MSU, and Florida and Florida State in my example below). Every team plays its conference mates every season, no conference championship games, between three and five out-of-conference games, and you have a nice, neat, eight-team playoff for conference champs only.
Alternatively, take these and make them into conferences of 16, with a conference championship game and only a four-team playoff. Seven "division" games, two cross-overs in conference, and two out-of-conference match-ups.
You have to make some tough decisions about who goes where, but this is a rough cut:
Pacific
Cal
Stanford
UCLA
USC
Washington
Washington State
Oregon
Oregon State
West
Arizona
Arizona State
Utah
BYU
Colorado
Nebraska
Kansas
Kansas State
Texas/Plains
Texas
Texas aTm
Baylor
TCU
Oklahoma
Oklahoma State
Arkansas
Missouri
Midwest
Iowa
Iowa State
Minnesota
Wisconsin
Illinois
Northwestern
Michigan State
Purdue
East
Syracuse
Boston College
Rutgers
Penn State
Pitt
Ohio State
Michigan
Notre Dame
Appalachia
Kentucky
Louisville
Indiana
Vanderbilt
Tennessee
West Virginia
Virginia Tech
Maryland
Atlantic South
Virginia
North Carolina
South Carolina
Clemson
Duke
Wake Forest
Miami
Florida State
South
Alabama
Auburn
Mississippi State
Ole Miss
LSU
Georgia
Georgia Tech
Florida
-
It's not a matter of booting PSU, but rather a matter of all of the schools doing what's best for the game moving forward.
noble, but unlikely since someone (Penn St. or the B1G) would be afraid of losing revenue - the unknown
but, I like the way you're thinking
-
EDIT: I somehow managed to forget Pitt in this thing. Count them in.
Eastern Conference Proposal:
Penn State
Rutgers
Maryland
Syracuse
West Virginia
Virginia Tech
Virginia
Notre Dame
Boston College
Louisville
Pittsburgh
2 helmets make this a pretty good looking conference, and it's pretty solid top-to-bottom.
-
noble, but unlikely since someone (Penn St. or the B1G) would be afraid of losing revenue - the unknown
but, I like the way you're thinking
I think the revenue bubble is going to burst in the next 10 years or so.
-
content is $$$
Penn St. is good content
-
Good content would be 10 conference games and 3 OOC games against real teams.
-
EDIT: I somehow managed to forget Pitt in this thing. Count them in.
Eastern Conference Proposal:
Penn State
Rutgers
Maryland
Syracuse
West Virginia
Virginia Tech
Virginia
Notre Dame
Boston College
Louisville
Pittsburgh
2 helmets make this a pretty good looking conference, and it's pretty solid top-to-bottom.
Another possible swap here could be taking on Cincy or UCon as opposed to Virginia. UVA would probably be a tough pull out of the ACC in this thing.
-
I've suggested this before, but once the TV bubble bursts, I'd argue that there's going to be a better incentive for power conference schools to go independent, at least for football. BYU's independence is kind of precursor to that. They've been able to schedule big non-con series with the likes of Wisconsin, USC, Washington, Texas, Florida State, and along with a slew of mid-level programs (UCLA, Mississippi State, Arizona, Washington State, Virginia).... They've had a few guarantee games but only with top programs (eg. with Nebraska and Michigan in 2015). Despite threats to do so, most of the MWC schools haven't blackballed them (they've played Hawaii, Utah State, UNLV, Boise State, and a few others), and they've only had a few series against MAC / CUSA / SunBelt programs.
With the recent news of the MWC likely adding Gonzaga, there's strong speculation that they would bring back BYU without football. If the MWC insisted they rejoin as a full-member, BYU would probably reject that, because they would become the top program in the WCC (Saint Mary's has been better in basketball of late, but that's not sustainable).
To some extent, New Mexico State (especially with rivals UTEP and UNM) and Massachusetts remain in FBS despite no prospects of joining a conference (and Liberty has moved up despite the same circumstances) because there are more than enough bowls to accommodate them, and they're able to fill their schedules with MAC / CUSA / SunBelt programs that they can beat if they're at all decent. Idaho moved back to FCS because the Big Sky is where they had more natural rivalries.
Back to my original point, if all the power conference schools were independents for football, most of the rivalries would remain (and some of the dead ones would surely return), and Michigan would schedule traditional Big Ten teams or more interesting opponents instead of Maryland and Rutgers. As for basketball and other sports, conferences still make sense, especially since the NCAA controls those post-seasons, though.
-
With the recent news of the MWC likely adding Gonzaga, there's strong speculation that they would bring back BYU without football. If the MWC insisted they rejoin as a full-member, BYU would probably reject that, because they would become the top program in the WCC (Saint Mary's has been better in basketball of late, but that's not sustainable).
I don't think being the top WCC program alone would be enough reason to stay. I think you'd wind up seeing some sort of basketball merger of the WCC and Big West. The only appeal to the WCC right now is the "better than they deserve" tv contract, solely due to the appeal of Gonzaga. Without them, I doubt the WCC would get nearly the same type of tv deal next go round.
I also don't think staying put to be the top dog (as much sense as it makes) is how any school is thinking. Every school when givne the option, is choosing to move up. See Wichita to the AAC, Valpo to the MWC, Davidson to the A10, Hampton to the Big South, etc... If they think overall it makes sense due to football, they'll do it, but I don't think staying would have anything to do with being the top dog in the WCC.
-
(https://cdn.vox-cdn.com/thumbor/G9QmzQWLrRDauQXVN0hJCBxLcUQ=/800x0/filters:no_upscale()/cdn.vox-cdn.com/uploads/chorus_asset/file/6448295/Screen_Shot_2016-05-06_at_10.10.04_AM.0.png)
-
noble, but unlikely since someone (Penn St. or the B1G) would be afraid of losing revenue - the unknown
but, I like the way you're thinking
agreed, unless the p5 come to a revenue distribution agreement for all of the conferences combined, i don't think anyone is downsizing voluntarily.
-
EDIT: I somehow managed to forget Pitt in this thing. Count them in.
Eastern Conference Proposal:
Penn State
Rutgers
Maryland
Syracuse
West Virginia
Virginia Tech
Virginia
Notre Dame
Boston College
Louisville
Pittsburgh
2 helmets make this a pretty good looking conference, and it's pretty solid top-to-bottom.
No NC State? Or am I missing something?
-
They stay in the ACC with their NC buddies.
-
EDIT: I somehow managed to forget Pitt in this thing. Count them in.
Eastern Conference Proposal:
Penn State
Rutgers
Maryland
Syracuse
West Virginia
Virginia Tech
Virginia
Notre Dame
Boston College
Louisville
Pittsburgh
2 helmets make this a pretty good looking conference, and it's pretty solid top-to-bottom.
Man, I’d love that conference.
-
I don't think being the top WCC program alone would be enough reason to stay. I think you'd wind up seeing some sort of basketball merger of the WCC and Big West. The only appeal to the WCC right now is the "better than they deserve" tv contract, solely due to the appeal of Gonzaga. Without them, I doubt the WCC would get nearly the same type of tv deal next go round.
I also don't think staying put to be the top dog (as much sense as it makes) is how any school is thinking. Every school when givne the option, is choosing to move up. See Wichita to the AAC, Valpo to the MWC, Davidson to the A10, Hampton to the Big South, etc... If they think overall it makes sense due to football, they'll do it, but I don't think staying would have anything to do with being the top dog in the WCC.
It's hard to say which side has more leverage as far as BYU and the MWC are concerned, even assuming Gonzaga does join, as it appears that they will.
The more I think about it, I think what we could end up seeing is a similar deal as Notre Dame with the ACC, where BYU guarantees 4-6 football games against the MWC in exchange for bowl access and joining for all other sports. The MWC is already at 12 for football with Hawaii as a football only school, and even if BYU were added for all sports, I don't really see the point of going to 14 in football with the best options being NMSU or one of the CUSA schools in Texas (UTEP, UTSA, Rice, North Texas). The MWC could still go to 14 for BB (w/o BYU FB) and other sports with another WCC school, Grand Canyon, or Denver (or just stay at 13, since they've been at 11 since the last realignment), which wouldn't cut into their football revenue. Of course, I wouldn't be shocked if San Jose State ever decided to give up on football and drop to the Big West.
That said, you're right that most schools want to be in the best league that they can be in. However, the WCC is comparable to the MWC in many sports aside from basketball (and they finished highest of all schools in either league in least year's NACDA standings: http://grfx.cstv.com/photos/schools/nacda/sports/directorscup/auto_pdf/2016-17/misc_non_event/D1final2017.pdf), and they're all religious institutions.
It will be interesting to see how it plays out.
-
ACC:
North Carolina
NC State
Wake Forest
Duke
Virginia
Clemson
Georgia Tech
Florida State
Miami
South Carolina (from SEC, former ACC school)
Need one more.
-
Midlands Conference:
Iowa State
Colorado (from PAC)
Missouri (from SEC)
Arkansas (from SEC)
Texas
Oklahoma
Kansas
Kansas State
Texas Tech
TCU
Houston (from AAC)
Yes, Baylor is dropped from the P5 (obviously), with Houston getting the promotion.
-
SEC:
This is pretty clean, taking away expansion schools Arkansas, South Carolina and Missouri. Texas A&M stays put in this scenario.
Kentucky
Tennessee
Vanderbilt
Auburn
Alabama
Georgia
Florida
Mississippi
Miss State
LSU
Texas A&M
-
PAC:
Also very clean, with only Colorado leaving for the midlands.
Washington
Wash State
Oregon
Oregon State
Stanford
California
Utah
Arizona
Arizona State
USC
UCLA
-
Still no spot for BYU. They could slide into the Midlands conference I propose, taking a spot from Houston, but the Big 12 as it currently sits has not wanted to add BYU. Same goes for the PAC.
That open spot in the ACC... maybe Virginia Tech stays put, with Cincy to the Eastern? Or Cincy to the ACC?
There are many scenarios in all of this.
-
Man, I’d love that conference.
That's essentially JoePa's vision, with a few more additions to get to 11.
-
BYU will never get in because of politics.
Their only chance is is the private schools all ditch the bureaucracy, and form their own conference.
-
Man, I’d love that conference.
I've said it before, but the BigEast's vote on whether or not to take PSU was one of the most consequential things in the history of cfb.
- Here is an article about the vote in which PSU's BigEast membership application was turned down by a single vote (http://bleacherreport.com/articles/2001004-how-penn-state-couldve-saved-big-east-football).
- Here is an article from a PSU site that makes the case that losing out on BigEast membership was the best thing that ever happened to PSU (https://onwardstate.com/2017/01/11/penn-states-greatest-gift-getting-rejected-by-the-big-east/).
A BigEast with PSU starting in 1982 would have been a completely different thing than the "BigLeast" that we all made fun of back in the 90's. I say the decision was one of the most consequential things in the history of cfb because it would have impacted the B1G (no PSU and likely no RU or UMD either), the ACC (who knows where FSU would have gone but if PSU was in the BE that would have made more sense), the B12 (no WVU) and who knows how many other long-term ripples.
-
Definitely a huge vote for the Big East, and even more interesting that the Big East no longer has football and all of the old schools who did play are playing elsewhere - some were "saved" and some not.
-
All of the original Big East teams were "saved" except Temple.
In all these rounds of realignment, the only net change regarding P5/G5 status is that Temple was demoted, while Louisville, Utah and TCU were promoted.
-
BYU will never get in because of politics.
Their only chance is is the private schools all ditch the bureaucracy, and form their own conference.
That could be a pretty solid conference:
USC
Notre Dame
Miami
Stanford
TCU
Baylor
BYU
Northwestern
Boston College
Vanderbilt
Duke
Wake Forest
With the three helmets at the top and a healthy handful more that make regular appearances in the top 25--and every conference has cellar dwellers. I'm looking at you, Indiana.
I'm sure I'm leaving a school or two out, but that's a pretty good start. And it provides a nice national platform for these schools.
-
All of the original Big East teams were "saved" except Temple.
In all these rounds of realignment, the only net change regarding P5/G5 status is that Temple was demoted, while Louisville, Utah and TCU were promoted.
Well, that all depends on what you call "original" because Temple was added for football well after the conference was established (along with Miami, Rutgers, VT, WVU), and was voted out in 2004 or so. They were not saved.
Cincy, Louisville, and USF were added out of desperation, and only Louisville was saved (out of ACC desperation). TCU and Boise were invited, accepted and later declined. I think maybe SDSU and even Navy too. Then they had UCF, Houston, SMU and Memphis join. None were saved.
UCon was also not saved, and was an original member in basketball and later took on football.
Very much a cluster F**k that could have been saved by one vote in 1982.
-
That could be a pretty solid conference:
USC
Notre Dame
Miami
Stanford
TCU
Baylor
BYU
Northwestern
Boston College
Vanderbilt
Duke
Wake Forest
With the three helmets at the top and a healthy handful more that make regular appearances in the top 25--and every conference has cellar dwellers. I'm looking at you, Indiana.
I'm sure I'm leaving a school or two out, but that's a pretty good start. And it provides a nice national platform for these schools.
Not Baylor (obviously).
-
Good point.
I meant the original Football Conference.
-
Good point.
I meant the original Football Conference.
10/4. And then you would be correct.
Thinking about all the schools that were Big East members is mind-numbing.
-
Technically the Big East Conferences first year of football coincided with SWC's final year.
So that season was probably the ultimate Conference alignment ever.
Not to mention the WAC still had it's glory line up.
UConn has hit a lot of realignment jackpots over the years. They got promoted from 1AA straight to the Big East, not based on performance but just because their Basketball team was there. Then their crappy Hockey team got to join Hockey East, just because Notre Dame had a cup of tea in that conference and they needed another member to make it an even number.
-
UCon as a major player, in anything, is probably done.
-
SEC:
This is pretty clean, taking away expansion schools Arkansas, South Carolina and Missouri. Texas A&M stays put in this scenario.
the Aggies don't belong, they can have Houston's spot taken from Baylor, because neither Baylor nor Houston deserve a spot
Leave the GameCocks in the SEC
-
Leaving usc in the SEC has ripple affects on the ACC and on the Eastern Conference, but I'll look at that. It could open up some spots for schools like Temple, UCon, Cincy and the two Florida directional schools.
-
It could open up some spots for schools like Temple, UCon, Cincy and the two Florida directional schools.
I don't think the big boys want or need any on that list
whats the number you are arriving at? 6 conferences with 11 teams = 66?
77? a couple conferences with 10 teams and 4 non-con games?
-
66 at 11/each.
-
Keep in mind that the "big boys" set the standard on what size a conference has to be, which is why the Big East took Temple back and promoted UCon as soon as it could, to stay at the mandated 8 schools, and keep that BCS bid.
-
I'm not convinced 6x11 is best, but if that's the framework, that's what I'll try. I'm going to erase the last 15 years. Go back to 2003, the year before the ACC raided the Big East. You had 6 BCS conferences: ACC (9), Big East (8), Big Ten (11), Big 12 (12, woah), Pac 10 (10) and SEC (12). That gives you 62. So what 4 do we add to that. Notre Dame is obvious. I think BYU is too. TCU, Louisville and Utah make the next most sense. That gets you to 67...but Temple was still in the Big East at that point. So they are gone. There are your 66.
I'm also ignoring tv networks and "footprints," and trying to change as little as possible
1.) I don't really want to break up Utah and BYU, and the Pac Ten pairings make so much sense, that I'll still send Colorado out west first. Pac 10 is done.
2.) Big 12 now has 11. But there really is nowhere else to put Utah and BYU. TCU for that matter. So I need to drop 3 there to make room for them. I can't find 3 that make sense. I can find 2. Missouri wants out, and Iowa State has a natural rival in the Big Ten. We'll deal with TCU later. Big 12 is set.
3.) I don't want to boot Penn State, but the Eastern thing always made more sense. They'll take Notre Dame with them, and that opens up Iowa State's slot
4.) SEC sends South Carolina to the ACC to be with Clemson, and sends Vandy, in that Vandy is a better academic fit. They release Kentucky to be with Louisville, and go play in a basketball conference. That gives them room to add both TCU and Missouri.
5.) Big East (after dropping Temple) sheds the Big LEast label by adding a football helmet duo (ND & PSU) and a basketball blue blood duo (UK and UL)
| ACC |
| Clemson |
| Duke |
| Florida State |
| Georgia Tech |
| Maryland |
| NC State |
| North Carolina |
| South Carolina |
| Vanderbilt |
| Virginia |
| Wake Forest |
| - |
| BIG EAST |
| Boston College |
| Kentucky |
| Louisville |
| Miami |
| Notre Dame |
| Penn State |
| Pittsburgh |
| Rutgers |
| Syracuse |
| Virginia Tech |
| West Virginia |
| - |
| BIG TEN |
| Illinois |
| Indiana |
| Iowa |
| Iowa State |
| Michigan |
| Michigan State |
| Minnesota |
| Northwestern |
| Ohio State |
| Purdue |
| Wisconsin |
| - |
| BIG 12 |
| Baylor |
| BYU |
| Kansas |
| Kansas State |
| Nebraska |
| Oklahoma |
| Oklahoma State |
| Texas |
| Texas A&M |
| Texas Tech |
| Utah |
| - |
| PAC TEN |
| Arizona |
| Arizona State |
| California |
| Colorado |
| Oregon |
| Oregon State |
| Stanford |
| UCLA |
| USC |
| Washington |
| Washington State |
| - |
| SEC |
| Alabama |
| Arkansas |
| Auburn |
| Florida |
| Georgia |
| LSU |
| Mississippi State |
| Missouri |
| Ole Miss |
| TCU |
| Tennessee |
-
No Baylor...
Swap ISU for Nebraska and I could mostly get behind that lineup.
-
It's not perfect, but I could live with it
much better than we have today
-
I assume we are splitting revenue 66 ways
dropping baylor and adding Houston or TCU doesn't matter much to me
I really like playing in the Big, especially in the Big west, but.......... going back to traditional matchups vs the Kansas and Oklahoma schools would be preferred with money being equal
more regional for travel and television
-
I assume we are splitting revenue 66 ways
dropping baylor and adding Houston or TCU doesn't matter much to me
I really like playing in the Big, especially in the Big west, but.......... going back to traditional matchups vs the Kansas and Oklahoma schools would be preferred with money being equal
more regional for travel and television
Yeah, I like Nebraska quite a bit. I like Penn State quite a bit. But if we are doing this for the good of all football, I want to keep as many teams with natural rivals as possible. That's also why I erased the last 15 years. I'm not moving Nebraska out, I'm just never moving them in. I'd also put Bedlam in October, and have Texas-Texas A&M and Nebraska-Oklahoma every Friday after Thanksgiving.
-
Completely agree with FF. I have no idea why badge is stuck on Nebraska being in the B1G. It's not traditional and it's not good for college football as a whole.
If you want "what's best for CFB" then Nebraska and OU need to be back in the same conference. I'm not saying it has to be with Texas in the B12 (or Midlands or whatever) but they need to be in the same conference. Playing every year as an OOC rivalry game works for some schools (UF/FSU, SoCar/Clemson, etc.) but Nebraska and Oklahoma belong together.
Similarly Texas and Texas A&M need to be in the same conference to work as rivals. Texas and Oklahoma, on the other hand, do not-- although I've certainly enjoyed the intensity of TX-OU as a conference rivalry.
-
I like it, B cause I'm an old guy
I also assume these 66 are only allowed to play other members of the 66?
So, Nebraska v Iowa State, Huskers v Hawks, and Herbie v Ralphie are natural non-con games
-
Completely agree with FF. I have no idea why badge is stuck on Nebraska being in the B1G. It's not traditional and it's not good for college football as a whole.
hah, Badgers want Nebraska for the same reason the Horns want Nebraska
a name whipping boy!
-
Yeah, I like Nebraska quite a bit. I like Penn State quite a bit. But if we are doing this for the good of all football, I want to keep as many teams with natural rivals as possible. That's also why I erased the last 15 years. I'm not moving Nebraska out, I'm just never moving them in. I'd also put Bedlam in October, and have Texas-Texas A&M and Nebraska-Oklahoma every Friday after Thanksgiving.
Actually, Thanksgiving night. I mean, as long as we're all living in the past and fantasizing here. :)
-
hah, Badgers want Nebraska for the same reason the Horns want Nebraska
a name whipping boy!
Ha! I quite specifically said that I didn't think Nebraska necessarily needed to be in the same conference as Texas, just that the Huskers and Sooners belonged together.
But, I'd certainly be heavily in favor of sharing a conference with Nebraska and getting that guaranteed W every year. ;)
Seriously though, I really enjoyed the B12 in its original form. I'd be A-OK with getting the band back together.
Leaving out Baylor, obviously.
-
Welp, a lot has happened in the last 15 years and some of can't be erased.
Given the choice, would OU want Texas, or would it want Nebraska?
-
OU would always take Texas
more recruits in the Lone Star State
but, as we see in the scenario above and in many decades past, the Sooners can have their cake and eat it too
-
Welp, a lot has happened in the last 15 years and some of can't be erased.
Given the choice, would OU want Texas, or would it want Nebraska?
My own personal feelings aside, why would it have to be a choice for OU? The solution that makes the most sense puts Oklahoma in the same conference as both Nebraska and Texas.
Your proposal of Nebraska being in the B1G with zero traditional rivals makes far less sense than putting them back in the B12 with ALL all of their traditional rivals.
Again, if you're truly interested in "what's best for college football" then putting the B12 back together in its original form (minus Baylor, obviously), makes much more sense than forcing Nebraska awkwardly into the B1G.
-
Actually, Thanksgiving night. I mean, as long as we're all living in the past and fantasizing here. :)
I'm not quite as old as you farts. I think of it as the noon Friday game, like it was in the 90s and 00s.
-
I'm not quite as old as you farts. I think of it as the noon Friday game, like it was in the 90s and 00s.
Ugh, gross.
Actually, from around 1996-2001, it was on T+1 at 11 AM Eastern, which made it 10 AM local time. Absolutely horrible.
Nope, no thanks. I'll take the traditional Thanksgiving Night slot, thank you very much. ;)
-
Ugh, gross.
Actually, from around 1996-2001, it was on T+1 at 11 AM Eastern, which made it 10 AM local time. Absolutely horrible.
Nope, no thanks. I'll take the traditional Thanksgiving Night slot, thank you very much. ;)
I was actually thinking that, then thinking I must be misremembering because there's no way they'd play it at 10 AM CT.
-
yup, Horns/Aggies on Thanksgiving night
Huskers/Sooners the day after at 2:30 central
-
yup, Horns/Aggies on Thanksgiving night
Huskers/Sooners the day after at 2:30 central
yup, Horns/Aggies on Thanksgiving night
Huskers/Sooners the day after at 2:30 central
Amen, brutha!
-
My own personal feelings aside, why would it have to be a choice for OU? The solution that makes the most sense puts Oklahoma in the same conference as both Nebraska and Texas.
Your proposal of Nebraska being in the B1G with zero traditional rivals makes far less sense than putting them back in the B12 with ALL all of their traditional rivals.
Again, if you're truly interested in "what's best for college football" then putting the B12 back together in its original form (minus Baylor, obviously), makes much more sense than forcing Nebraska awkwardly into the B1G.
Well, Nebraska had been trying to get into the Big Ten since at least 1903, and it jumped at its first real chance.
So, there's that, combined with its supposed desire to not be with Texas anymore.
We could do a lot of what-ifs on this thing (it's offseason).
Take the old Big 8 and add BYU, Utah and Texas A&M.
Take the Pac 10 and add Texas. Seems to me that UT had explored that in the past, and as recently as this decade.
-
Take the Pac 10 and add Texas. Seems to me that UT had explored that in the past, and as recently as this decade.
Plus they could merge the Pac 12 Network with the LHN, pull the plug, and tell people it was still on. Not like anyone would be able notice if it was or wasn't to call their bluff!
:29:
-
Hah!
-
Realistically, conferences aren't shrinking, just being plundered or growing. I'd do a 16x4 setup, with pods, so each incoming FR class will play everyone else in their conference twice - once home, once away (every other year).
SEC + 2 (KU, OKST)
B10 + 2 (UVA, UNC)
PAC12 +4 (BYU, TCU, OU, Tex)
ACC -2, +4 (ND, WV, KSU, UCF)
So existing P5 programs ISU, TTU, and Baylor fall by the wayside. ND and BYU are included. The XII and ACC are poached, but the ACC survives.
Each conference has four pods of four schools each. The PAC catches up with the SEC and B10, thanks to UT + OU. The ACC becomes the red-headed Frankenstein ACC/XII combo + ND.
-
I like the 8-team conferences, which allows for lots of out-of-conference match ups. Seven guarantees, leaves room for a couple of out-of-conference rivalry games, and still a few more wild cards OOCs (on a 12 game schedule). And the playoff is conference champs only, nice and clean.
Since we're splitting revenue anyway, flexibility is good, but so is order.
-
I'd settle for 10 team conferences. Otherwise you lose too much history
The B1G, SEC and PAC would have the most to lose by going with less than 10, let alone 8 or 9.
Those 3 conferences have had the most stability over the years - one since 1896, which spans 3 different centuries. Who ya gonna drop to get to 8?
So let's look at 6 conferences with 10 schools each. Not much work to do with the Pac-10, Big Ten or SEC.
-
This conversation (while enjoyable) is starting to sound like the meeting on the side of the road in the It's a Mad Mad Mad Mad World when nearly the entire ensemble cast (Rooney, Berle, Winters, Cesar, Hackett, etc.) are arguing over how to split the $250Gs and they cast the scorn towards Ethel Merman's character (the old bag).
Every Man for Himself (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j-7pVks8avo)
-
East
Notre Dame
Ohio State
Michigan
Penn State
Tennessee
Georgia
Florida
Florida State
Miami
Clemson
West
Nebraska
Oklahoma
Texas
aTm
LSU
Auburn
Bama
USCw
UCLA
BYU
-
I'd settle for 10 team conferences. Otherwise you lose too much history
The B1G, SEC and PAC would have the most to lose by going with less than 10, let alone 8 or 9.
Those 3 conferences have had the most stability over the years - one since 1896, which spans 3 different centuries. Who ya gonna drop to get to 8?
So let's look at 6 conferences with 10 schools each. Not much work to do with the Pac-10, Big Ten or SEC.
Well in my idea, you basically have pairs of 8-team conferences. Plus you end up with 4 conference champions for a playoff. All schools are on equal footing and have an equal chance at the national title.
-
East
Notre Dame
Ohio State
Michigan
Penn State
Tennessee
Georgia
Florida
Florida State
Miami
Clemson
West
Nebraska
Oklahoma
Texas
aTm
LSU
Auburn
Bama
USCw
UCLA
BYU
Lots of faded glory or never been in that list, buckaroo.
-
Well in my idea, you basically have pairs of 8-team conferences. Plus you end up with 4 conference champions for a playoff. All schools are on equal footing and have an equal chance at the national title.
Right, but that sucks for those of us who value matchups that date to the 19th century, or early 20th.
-
Realistically, conferences aren't shrinking, just being plundered or growing. I'd do a 16x4 setup, with pods, so each incoming FR class will play everyone else in their conference twice - once home, once away (every other year).
SEC + 2 (KU, OKST)
B10 + 2 (UVA, UNC)
PAC12 +4 (BYU, TCU, OU, Tex)
ACC -2, +4 (ND, WV, KSU, UCF)
So existing P5 programs ISU, TTU, and Baylor fall by the wayside. ND and BYU are included. The XII and ACC are poached, but the ACC survives.
Each conference has four pods of four schools each. The PAC catches up with the SEC and B10, thanks to UT + OU. The ACC becomes the red-headed Frankenstein ACC/XII combo + ND.
badger's far-fetched ideas sounds fun. Your far-fectched idea sounds like a boring NFL-lite. No thanks.
-
Well, Nebraska had been trying to get into the Big Ten since at least 1903, and it jumped at its first real chance.
So, there's that, combined with its supposed desire to not be with Texas anymore.
We could do a lot of what-ifs on this thing (it's offseason).
Take the old Big 8 and add BYU, Utah and Texas A&M.
Take the Pac 10 and add Texas. Seems to me that UT had explored that in the past, and as recently as this decade.
Colorado wanted the PAC decades ago, duing the old B8 years and long before the B12 was formed, yet your awkward alignments are forcing them back into a conference they haven't wanted since Ike was president.
Doesn't really sound like you're paying much attention to anything other than your own personal B1G biases.
This entire exercise is a farce. Abort, ABORT!!!!!!
-
This conversation (while enjoyable) is starting to sound like the meeting on the side of the road in the It's a Mad Mad Mad Mad World when nearly the entire ensemble cast (Rooney, Berle, Winters, Cesar, Hackett, etc.) are arguing over how to split the $250Gs and they cast the scorn towards Ethel Merman's character (the old bag).
Every Man for Himself (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j-7pVks8avo)
Which is most certainly, only exactly and precisely what conference realigment has been since it started over 100 years ago.
Same as it ever was.
-
badger's far-fetched ideas sounds fun. Your far-fectched idea sounds like a boring NFL-lite. No thanks.
He dumped Baylor man.
-
I'd settle for 10 team conferences. Otherwise you lose too much history
The B1G, SEC and PAC would have the most to lose by going with less than 10, let alone 8 or 9.
Those 3 conferences have had the most stability over the years - one since 1896, which spans 3 different centuries. Who ya gonna drop to get to 8?
So let's look at 6 conferences with 10 schools each. Not much work to do with the Pac-10, Big Ten or SEC.
Big Ten
Illinois
Indiana
Iowa
Michigan
Michigan State
Minnesota
Northwestern
Ohio State
Purdue
Wisconsin
SEC:
Alabama
Auburn
Florida
Georgia
Kentucky
Louisiana State
Mississippi
Mississippi State
Tennessee
Vanderbilt
PAC:
Arizona
Arizona State
California
Oregon
Oregon State
Southern California
Stanford
UCLA
Washington
Washington State
Big 8
Brigham Young
Colorado
Kansas
Kansas State
Iowa State
Missouri
Nebraska
Oklahoma
Oklahoma State
Utah
Eastern Conference
Boston College
Connecticut
Miami
Notre Dame
Penn State
Rutgers
Syracuse
Virginia Tech
West Virginia
Temple
ACC:
Clemson
Duke
Florida State
Georgia Tech
Maryland
North Carolina
North Carolina State
South Carolina
Virginia
Wake Forest
Big Southwest
Arkansas
Houston
Rice
Southern Methodist
Texas
Texas A&M
Texas Christian
Texas Tech
Need two more
Louisville? Cincy? Memphis? New Mexico? Not Baylor?
-
I like the 8-team conferences, which allows for lots of out-of-conference match ups. Seven guarantees, leaves room for a couple of out-of-conference rivalry games, and still a few more wild cards OOCs (on a 12 game schedule). And the playoff is conference champs only, nice and clean.
Since we're splitting revenue anyway, flexibility is good, but so is order.
we are almost there with 16-team conferences in 2 divisions
-
I'd settle for 10 team conferences. Otherwise you lose too much history
The B1G, SEC and PAC would have the most to lose by going with less than 10, let alone 8 or 9.
Those 3 conferences have had the most stability over the years - one since 1896, which spans 3 different centuries. Who ya gonna drop to get to 8?
So let's look at 6 conferences with 10 schools each. Not much work to do with the Pac-10, Big Ten or SEC.
yes, add the Horns and Aggies to the old Big 8 and we are there
-
yes, add the Horns and Aggies to the old Big 8 and we are there
What do you then do with Utah, Arky and Texas Tech? No to mention TCU, BYU, etc.
If you're doing 10 school conferences, there are several current P5's who would get squeezed out.
'Fro has proposed dropping schools like ISU and others. Don't look now, but ISU is getting serious about its program.
-
What do you then do with Utah, Arky and Texas Tech? No to mention TCU, BYU, etc.
If you're doing 10 school conferences, there are several current P5's who would get squeezed out.
'Fro has proposed dropping schools like ISU and others. Don't look now, but ISU is getting serious about its program.
add another 10 team conference or drop the dead weight
those 5 teams would make a good start
-
Already gave up annual games against Michigan, Michigan State, Penn State, and Ohio State. Getting guarantees against a single, contiguous, geographically meaningful conference (including Iowa, Minnesota, and either ND or Michigan State), and having the opportunity to put the likes of Michigan, Michigan State (or ND), Penn State, and Ohio State on a permanent rotation (two of them every year), while still having room for three other OOC games against quality opponents seems like a win. I'm ok with giving up Indiana to get there.
Which is how I get to an 8-team conference realignment.
If what you really want is return to the old Big and Pac-10 and a way to for ND into a conference, I like that idea, too (except the ND thing), but I'm not sure it's any more realistic. :-)
For the playoff, you could even do a regional quarterfinal, where the West and the Pacific always play each other, the Midwest and the East, Texas and Appalachia, and South and Atlantic South (or some similar combination, with the intent to avoid making a Florida team fly to Seattle, or vice versa). Then do nationally based neutral site semis and final.
Of course, another way to approach this would be to trim the fat, English Premier League style. Go to 8-team conferences by taking out the worst two, and make those teams fight for the scraps. Finish in the bottom two in your conference and you're out, replaced by the top of Tier 2 (whether that's Western Michigan, Northern Illinois, North Dakota, Indiana...).
-
Already gave up annual games against Michigan, Michigan State, Penn State, and Ohio State. Getting guarantees against a single, contiguous, geographically meaningful conference (including Iowa, Minnesota, and either ND or Michigan State), and having the opportunity to put the likes of Michigan, Michigan State (or ND), Penn State, and Ohio State on a permanent rotation (two of them every year), while still having room for three other OOC games against quality opponents seems like a win. I'm ok with giving up Indiana to get there.
Which is how I get to an 8-team conference realignment.
If what you really want is return to the old Big and Pac-10 and a way to for ND into a conference, I like that idea, too (except the ND thing), but I'm not sure it's any more realistic. :-)
For the playoff, you could even do a regional quarterfinal, where the West and the Pacific always play each other, the Midwest and the East, Texas and Appalachia, and South and Atlantic South (or some similar combination, with the intent to avoid making a Florida team fly to Seattle, or vice versa). Then do nationally based neutral site semis and final.
Of course, another way to approach this would be to trim the fat, English Premier League style. Go to 8-team conferences by taking out the worst two, and make those teams fight for the scraps. Finish in the bottom two in your conference and you're out, replaced by the top of Tier 2 (whether that's Western Michigan, Northern Illinois, North Dakota, Indiana...).
Yeah, I realize this is the B1G board and the proposal in the original post is coming from a B1G fan, but to the rest of the country, Indiana and Illinois football are no more sacred than Iowa State or Vanderbilt. If we truly want to "trim the fat" then there are programs in every conference that could be dropped without the bat of an eye.
-
badger's far-fetched ideas sounds fun. Your far-fectched idea sounds like a boring NFL-lite. No thanks.
The difference, IMHO, is that while Badge's theories here are "pie-in-the-sky" crazy, OAM's proposal is pretty realistic.
-
Yeah, I realize this is the B1G board and the proposal in the original post is coming from a B1G fan, but to the rest of the country, Indiana and Illinois football are no more sacred than Iowa State or Vanderbilt. If we truly want to "trim the fat" then there are programs in every conference that could be dropped without the bat of an eye.
Speaking for myself:
When I talk about "trimming the fat" it isn't in a "quality of football" sense, it is in a "revenue brought to the table" sense. This is because it is and always has been about money. A school with good football (much better than IU, IL, ISU, or Vandy) but few or no fans (and thus no ratings boost) is "fat" while a school with bad football and lots of fans is not.
-
The difference, IMHO, is that while Badge's theories here are "pie-in-the-sky" crazy, OAM's proposal is pretty realistic.
Sure, it's pretty realistic, it's no different than the same mundane, boring, and unfun conversations we've had regarding expansion/realignment for the past couple of decades.
Why would we want to talk about a realistic extension of the current already-becoming-unfun state of college football? The intent of the OP was clearly to fantasize about something that's more fun than our current, or expected, reality.
-
Speaking for myself:
When I talk about "trimming the fat" it isn't in a "quality of football" sense, it is in a "revenue brought to the table" sense. This is because it is and always has been about money. A school with good football (much better than IU, IL, ISU, or Vandy) but few or no fans (and thus no ratings boost) is "fat" while a school with bad football and lots of fans is not.
Again it looks like you're missing the point of badger's original post and subsequent thread discussion. We all know exactly what college football is currently about-- money straight up plain and simple.
When badger talks about doing things "for the good of college football" he's not talking about the financial piece at all. He's talking about restoring traditional rivalries, improving the on-field product, and making the sport more fun, instead of less fun, which is its current trajectory. If he's going to suggest trimming out historically bad football programs, then there's plenty of fat in every conference.
-
The difference, IMHO, is that while Badge's theories here are "pie-in-the-sky" crazy, OAM's proposal is pretty realistic.
The preverbal chit will hit the fan soon enough, and schools will go back to traditional values as a result.
IF football even exists by then...
-
Realistically, conferences aren't shrinking, just being plundered or growing. I'd do a 16x4 setup, with pods, so each incoming FR class will play everyone else in their conference twice - once home, once away (every other year).
SEC + 2 (KU, OKST)
B10 + 2 (UVA, UNC)
PAC12 +4 (BYU, TCU, OU, Tex)
ACC -2, +4 (ND, WV, KSU, UCF)
I don't actually favor this. In fact, if it were simply up to me with no restrictions I'd probably be pretty close to Badge. That said, I think this is roughly where we are headed and I'll be ok with that.
I think that 14 is a silly number of schools for a conference. I actually think the old ACC (nine members from 1991-2003) was great. You had a full round-robin on an eight game schedule. I also think that 12 works reasonably well particularly if you can avoid locked cross-overs. If you can, then you can play every team in two (nine game season) or three (eight game season) seasons. With 14 and at least some locked cross-overs you go too long (IMHO) between playing some of the teams in the other division. That is why I think 16 would be, at least in some ways, an improvement. Like you, I'd go to pods and with nine games I would set it up as follows:
In a given season each team plays:
- Their three pod-mates once each (three games)
- The four members of one of the other pods once each (four games)
- One or two probably fixed or semi-fixed members of one or both of the other pods (one or two games)
That is a total of either eight or nine games.
Here is how I would set it up with OAM's members (UVA, UNC added):
| Pod/Group | Grp1 | Grp2 | Grp3 | Grp4 |
| North Pod | M | MSU | PU | NU |
| East Pod | PSU | UMD | UVA | UNC |
| West Pod | UNL | Iowa | UW | MN |
| South Pod | tOSU | RU | IU | IL |
With a nine game schedule, each team would play:
- The three other teams in their pod
- The three other teams in their group
- The three remaining teams from one of the other three pods
Example, Michigan:
Every year they would play:
Then their other three games would rotate annually between:
- Year 1 (North and East Pods as one division, South and West Pods as the other): UMD, UVA, UNC
- Year 2 (North and West Pods as one division, South and East Pods as the other): Iowa, UW, MN
- Year 3 (North and South Pods as one division, East and West Pods as the other): RU, IU, IL
Thus, in three years Michigan (and every other B1G school) would play every B1G team and in six years they would both both host and travel to every other B1G school.
-
To clarify one thing on all of this: It's about more than just football. When I talk about dumping Baylor, it's clearly not about football because they have been more than relevant lately.
When I think about Illinois and relevance, I always come back to the fact that they were able to lure a head coach who took a team to a Super Bowl. Regardless of whether or not you think he's a good coach (I don't think he is), that's saying something.
-
To clarify one thing on all of this: It's about more than just football. When I talk about dumping Baylor, it's clearly not about football because they have been more than relevant lately.
When I think about Illinois and relevance, I always come back to the fact that they were able to lure a head coach who took a team to a Super Bowl. Regardless of whether or not you think he's a good coach (I don't think he is), that's saying something.
I'm just saying that outside the B1G, people don't value Illinois or Indiana football any more than they value Iowa State or Vanderbilt football. So if you're suggesting cutting teams like Iowa State to improve the overall product, which I can totally understand, then programs like Illinois and Indiana are similarly undesirable.
I too have often thought a system like soccer's relegation would be very helpful if applied to college football. Obviously that's not a direction Americans are ever really going to favor, but I do believe it would help solve some of the issues we complain about as fans of college football in general.
-
Never once did I propose cutting Iowa State. Others have, but not me.
-
Never once did I propose cutting Iowa State. Others have, but not me.
Gotcha, I might have mixed up some posts a ways back up there.
-
the networks will decide what programs get cut
if the networks could only have a smidgen of intelligence, they would see that content is worth the most money and the best content comes from traditional, mostly regional rivalries.
ratings apparently are easy to obtain, the math is simple
-
the networks will decide what programs get cut
if the networks could only have a smidgen of intelligence, they would see that content is worth the most money and the best content comes from traditional, mostly regional rivalries.
ratings apparently are easy to obtain, the math is simple
This is why I've been promoting 11 schools with 10 conference games and 3 OOC games against like schools.
Content.
I'd rather any day of the week watch Indiana against Illinois than Indiana against Western Kentucky or whatever. In fact, I likely wouldn't watch the latter even if there was nothing else on. And that's ME. A fanatic for college football.
-
seems the networks would reward the conferences with better scheduling and therefore better content
but, the SEC and B1G are powerful, and they enjoy the cupcakes and winning percentage
why pay Western Kentucky $750,000, when scheduling a better opponent coats nothing and bumps ratings which makes more $$$?
doesn't make any cents - :stupid:
-
networks don't care about content, they care about viewers.
and cfb is big enough in the sec and b1g footprints that they'll get those viewers vs either indiana or west kentucky.
the only big spikes in viewership is for major games, and no one is going to schedule more than 1 non-conf major game. and i don't mean p5 opp games, i mean bama/fsu, osu/texas, lsu/wisk, mich/nd, etc. they'll play 2-3 already in conf.
-
The other thing is that BTN doesn't want to pay more to the schools for premier OOC games, because they know most of those premier OOC games will be on ESPN/ABC. A lot of their allure is getting the games that other networks wouldn't have aired anyway so that fans can see EVERY game their team plays, even when it's not on ESPN. They fight to have a few premier conference games per year, but the big programs don't want to give them too many of those (relative to ESPN/ABC) because they know there will be fewer viewers than if those are on ESPN/ABC.
-
ESPN/ABC is going away fellas. Focus on the future. The future for conferences is having their own networks and streaming services. It's already started.
-
ESPN/ABC is not going away
they are streaming as well
the delivery method will change
the big boys will continue to control the content
-
ESPN/ABC is not going away
they are streaming as well
the delivery method will change
the big boys will continue to control the content
That's the takeaway. Content is king.
-
Sorry for being too realistic, guys. What was I thinking?!?
-
Fantasyland Who-Ha Boom-Boom College Football Idear:
Ole SEC: Florida, UGA, Bama, Tenn, Ole Miss, LSU, Auburn, Vandy, Miss St, UK
Ole PAC 10: Wash, Wazzou, Oregon, OrSt, Cal, Stan, USC, UCLA, Ariz, ASU
Ole Big 10: Wis, Minn, Iowa, ILL, NW, Mich, MSU, OSU, IU, Purdue
Ole Big 8+2: KU, KSU, ISU, Nebraska, CU, OU, OkSt, Mizzou, BYU, Utah
Ole SWC+1: Texas, A&M, TxTech, Hou, TCU, Baylor, SMU, Arky, Rice, Tulane
Ole ACC + 1: FSU, GA Tech, Clemson, WF, Duke, UNC, NC St, UVA, Maryland, ND
Ole Big East +3: Miami, BC, WV, VT, Pitt, Penn St, Syracuse, UConn, Cincinnati, Louisville
Tradition is just a word we use to pretend the world isn't fluid and something we yearn for in order to keep the world static. It doesn't work.
-
Yawn
-
Fantasyland Who-Ha Boom-Boom College Football Idear:
Ole SEC: Florida, UGA, Bama, Tenn, Ole Miss, LSU, Auburn, Vandy, Miss St, UK
Ole PAC 10: Wash, Wazzou, Oregon, OrSt, Cal, Stan, USC, UCLA, Ariz, ASU
Ole Big 10: Wis, Minn, Iowa, ILL, NW, Mich, MSU, OSU, IU, Purdue
Ole Big 8+2: KU, KSU, ISU, Nebraska, CU, OU, OkSt, Mizzou, BYU, Utah
Ole SWC+1: Texas, A&M, TxTech, Hou, TCU, Baylor, SMU, Arky, Rice, Tulane
Ole ACC + 1: FSU, GA Tech, Clemson, WF, Duke, UNC, NC St, UVA, Maryland, ND
Ole Big East +3: Miami, BC, WV, VT, Pitt, Temple, Syracuse, UConn, Cincinnati, Louisville
Tradition is just a word we use to pretend the world isn't fluid and something we yearn for in order to keep the world static. It doesn't work.
Where is Penn State?
-
| Pod/Group | Grp1 | Grp2 | Grp3 | Grp4 |
| | | | |
| South Pod | tOSU | RU | IU | IL |
I hate this Pod. The only team that I am mildly interested in playing as an OSU fan is Illinois. Getting saddled with Rutgers and IU (Historically the 2 worst teams in the conference turns my stomach.)
It's adding two eastern teams that causes an oddity of where to put the 5th Eastern team? And I really hope sticking Rutgers with OSU is not the answer.
-
It's fun to put our dream alignments out there, but in reality it would either stay the way it is or they'd add the top G5s in order to bump all of the Conferences up to the same number. (14 or 16)
I bet that they'd even figure out a way to allow ND to carry on as an Independent.
-
Where is Penn State?
I was thinking the same thing.
Swap Temple with PSU in the "Ole Big East" and call it good.
Or hell, just let the B1G have eleven teams again like it had for two decades.
-
I really dislike the term, "pod"
and the alignments termed pods and the rotations are not good in my opinion
-
I really dislike the term, "pod"
and the alignments termed pods and the rotations are not good in my opinion
As we are throwing out our dream alignments (and ignoring everyone else) we have to decide do we want to revert to some point in time that was close to what we think is perfect and modify that; or push forward into a brave new world and try and shape what the conference may look like in the future.
Moving forward where expanding to 16 seems to make more sense than stagnation or contraction, we have to argue do we want 2 8 team conferences that play a title game (and a couple more crossovers) or do we want "pods" where we try to play the whole conference as much as possible.
I'm firmly in the "pod" camp. In our Brave New World, history be d@mned!
We get 3 regional rivalries (Home Pod.) We get 3 performance rivalries (Over a set period of time against teams have performed at your level, ie Performance Pod.) And we get 3 temporary opponents. (2 years H-A with whatever is left of another pod.)
Example (I'm going to add Missouri and Virginia Tech to the B1G for this fantasy.) East - Penn State, Virginia Tech, Maryland, Rutgers (Rutgers gets to play in the east, novel right?) West - Wisconsin, Nebraska, Iowa, Minnesota North - Michigan, Michigan State, Northwestern, Purdue South - OSU, Missouri, Illinois, Indiana
Performance over the last 6 years I think would create performance pods of: King - PSU, Wisconsin, OSU, MSU. Barons - Virginia Tech, Nebraska, Michigan, Missouri. Knights - Maryland, Iowa, Northwestern, Illinois. Peasants - Rutgers, Minnesota, Purdue, Indiana
Temporary Pod - Years 1&4 East also plays West, while North plays South. Years 2&5 East also plays North, While West plays South. Years 3&6 East also plays South, while North plays West
You get to play everyone in the conference every 3 years, and H-A every 6. After 6 years we would rebalance the performance pods. Every year this format keeps us 3 regional rivalries, 3 really good games against teams performing similar level to your team, and 3 games against a conference mate. I'd buy season tickets to see that slate. Nationally, the top performing teams in the conference get to compete in showcase games for the the conference. It just makes too much sense to me to actually do this.
EDIT: It was shown the MSU has performed better over the last 6 years than the fighting Hairballs. Updated Tier status.
-
Sorry for being too realistic, guys. What was I thinking?!?
Well I don't think anyone here is discussing their realistic scenarios. I, for one, know mine ain't happening.
-
Ty needs to swap Michigan for Michigan State, I believe.
-
Well I don't think anyone here is discussing their realistic scenarios. I, for one, know mine ain't happening.
Right. the most realistic scenario is college football going away, or morphing in to a game slightly resembling what it is today.
-
Right. the most realistic scenario is college football going away, or morphing in to a game slightly resembling what it is today.
e sports
-
Ty needs to swap Michigan for Michigan State, I believe.
Even with MSU sh!tting the bed 2 years ago? (Admittingly I didn't look, 2 years ago I had MSU on top, and last year put UM back on top of my imaginary Northern Pod, and didn't change it this year.)
EDIT:
MSU 33-17
UM 30-20
Yup you are right, let's demote those skunk weasels.
-
Even with MSU sh!tting the bed 2 years ago? (Admittingly I didn't look, 2 years ago I had MSU on top, and last year put UM back on top of my imaginary Northern Pod, and didn't change it this year.)
Yep. Look at the winning percentages and accomplishments in this period.
-
ESPN/ABC is not going away
they are streaming as well
the delivery method will change
the big boys will continue to control the content
When ESPN/ABC have nothing to stream, it will go away. They are currently in a big spat with the NFL even.
-
If you dont like a word, change it. Pods? How about quads? Quartets. Corners. Squares. Blocks. Who cares?
In my too-realistic version (no TTU, ISU, Baylor, and I've replaced KSU with UConn):
SEC Quads:
Florida, SCarolina, Vandy, Kentucky
Georgia, Alabama, Tennessee, Auburn
Missouri, Okie St, Kansas, Texas A&M
Arkansas, LSU, Ole Miss, Miss State.........Yes, the UF quad is weak, but it's due to stubborn politics: Bama wants to play AU and UT, UGA wants to play AU, and UT wants to play Bama. So instead of holding the rest of the SEC hostage like they did in 1992, they can all live with each other in the same section. I'm sure the B10 has similar politics, but I don't know them.
B10 Quads (not knowing the politics):
Michigan, Ohio St, Indiana, Purdue
MSU, Penn St, Northwestern, Illinois
Nebraska, Iowa, Wisconsin, Minnesota
Virginia, UNC, Maryland, Rutgers
PAC Quads:
UW, Wazzou, Oregon, Oregon St
Cal, Stanford, USC, UCLA
Arizona, ASU, BYU, Utah
Oklahoma, Texas, TCU, Colorado
ACC Quads:
FSU, Miami, GA Tech, UCF
Clemson, NC State, Wake, Duke
WV, VA Tech, Louisville, Notre Dame
BC, UConn, Pitt, Syracuse
-
ESPN/ABC don't play nice. Sometimes they lose with that tactic
but, they have the benjamins, because they have the subscriber base
high bidder usually gets the content - they have the prime content because they pay the best price
obviously, that can change in the future, but ESPN/ABC isn't going to give it up w/o a fight
-
If you dont like a word, change it. Pods? How about quads? Quartets. Corners. Squares. Blocks. Who cares?
many of us are talking about, hoping for, going back to better rivalry games on the schedule. Either traditional or simply more natural rivals. Regional neighbors or other reasons.
pods and quads waters things down more. Putting larger groups together allows for fewer teams to play annually.
I'd rather have 8 team divisions in a 16-team conference that play each other every season, than a Quad that play each other every season, but don't play the other 12 teams annually.
-
As we are throwing out our dream alignments (and ignoring everyone else) we have to decide do we want to revert to some point in time that was close to what we think is perfect and modify that; or push forward into a brave new world and try and shape what the conference may look like in the future.
Moving forward where expanding to 16 seems to make more sense than stagnation or contraction, we have to argue do we want 2 8 team conferences that play a title game (and a couple more crossovers) or do we want "pods" where we try to play the whole conference as much as possible.
I'm firmly in the "pod" camp. In our Brave New World, history be d@mned!
We get 3 regional rivalries (Home Pod.) We get 3 performance rivalries (Over a set period of time against teams have performed at your level, ie Performance Pod.) And we get 3 temporary opponents. (2 years H-A with whatever is left of another pod.)
Example (I'm going to add Missouri and Virginia Tech to the B1G for this fantasy.) East - Penn State, Virginia Tech, Maryland, Rutgers (Rutgers gets to play in the east, novel right?) West - Wisconsin, Nebraska, Iowa, Minnesota North - Michigan, Michigan State, Northwestern, Purdue South - OSU, Missouri, Illinois, Indiana
Performance over the last 6 years I think would create performance pods of: King - PSU, Wisconsin, OSU, Michigan. Barons - Virginia Tech, Nebraska, MSU, Missouri. Knights - Maryland, Iowa, Northwestern, Illinois. Peasants - Rutgers, Minnesota, Purdue, Indiana
Temporary Pod - Years 1&4 East also plays West, while North plays South. Years 2&5 East also plays North, While West plays South. Years 3&6 East also plays South, while North plays West
You get to play everyone in the conference every 3 years, and H-A every 6. After 6 years we would rebalance the performance pods. Every year this format keeps us 3 regional rivalries, 3 really good games against teams performing similar level to your team, and 3 games against a conference mate. I'd buy season tickets to see that slate. Nationally, the top performing teams in the conference get to compete in showcase games for the the conference. It just makes too much sense to me to actually do this.
I too am firmly in the "pod" camp. I know you travel some because I've seen you on roadtrips before. That is probably part of the reason for both of us. In a 16 team conference with two eight-team divisions even if you didn't have any fixed cross-overs and had nine-game schedules it would still take four years to play the eight teams in the other division and eight years would elapse between hosting them. I much prefer the "pod" model where you play each team every three years and host them every six.
The ability to "rebalance" the performance pods is somewhat limited because:
- Northwestern (North Pod) and Illinois (South Pod) have to be in the same "performance pod" to maintain that instate rivalry.
- Purdue (North Pod) and Indiana (South Pod) have to be in the same "performance pod" to maintain that instate rivalry.
Also, even though Wisconsin's and Michigan State's performance over the past six years (your time-frame) has clearly exceeded that of Nebraska and Michigan respectively, I think viewership (which is ultimately all-important) is based as much on "Helmet" as it is on recent performance. Thus, I think that Nebraska and Michigan are likely to draw more viewers and more stadium attendance. That is why my version of your "King Performance Pod" was Nebraska, Michigan, Penn State, and Ohio State. Of the four, only Ohio State has been consistently near the top of the B1G in actual on-field performance for every recent (say last 24 years) six year bloc. I would ignore that and keep those four as the "King Performance Pod" until MSU's or UW's (or another team's) "helmet" grew to exceed one of the "Kings".
Finally, we've discussed this before but I think that if Big Jim had any interest in Mizzou they would have joined when they practically begged for a B1G invite before joining the SEC. Now that they are in the SEC, I don't think that is a direction that the B1G will probably ever go.
-
Finally, we've discussed this before but I think that if Big Jim had any interest in Mizzou they would have joined when they practically begged for a B1G invite before joining the SEC. Now that they are in the SEC, I don't think that is a direction that the B1G will probably ever go.
Perhaps it's revisionist history on my part, but I think Mizzou was real close to becoming a member till the Home Run Nebraska came along. Academia, and Politicians from Missouri both campaigned for their admission.
After the B1G said they were done with the 1 addition and Missouri showed their hand of wanting to get out they scrambled until finding a soft landing spot in the SEC. The vibe from Tiger fans admission was one of relief, not excitement. And after winning the SEC East twice in football there was a sense of "hey this could work."
But now that they have fallen back into the pack, more and more people are noting that the SEC isn't a perfect fit. And questions are coming upi that maybe B1G would be better.
-
Mizzou was never close to being a member, but I'm not sure why. I've been there and it felt like a Big Ten school and it's AAU.
-
Maybe we should rethink this without the Pac 12?
-
Maybe we should rethink this without the Pac 12?
Ouch. I can't think of a conference having a worse stint than the Pac this year. There is too much money out there for them to stay at the bottom for long.
I'm in the camp that postseason performance isn't the "be-all-end-all" of performance metrics. But I was really happy when the B1G got snubbed from the postseason they performed so well in the bowls. Interesting each B1G team got bumped down a spot to make room for non-CFP bound OSU except for M*ch*g*n who got bumped up 2 spots. And even it that game UofM looked the better team (until they didn't.) It didn't help the Pac's appearance that 4 of their teams lost to B1G (3 of the 4 in pretty dominant fashion.)
Now for basketball they only got 3 invites?!? I thought the B1G looked bad with only 4, thankfully our 2 lower seeds got wins (sloppy, but wins) yesterday, and MSU and Purdue look really good on paper. I haven't looked deep into it (and hope I don't jinx it) but I expect B1G will have the best performance in the tourney, and that's just playing to their seed, no upsets needed.
Pac will rebound, and rebound fast. Even at this low they have to be closer to the next P5 team than the highest G5 team is to them.
-
I really dislike the term, "pod"
i could not agree more. there is a perfect word for it already in use: divisions.
-
i could not agree more. there is a perfect word for it already in use: divisions.
Well, no a pod is different than a division. Pods move around to create the divisions.
-
Definition of pod
1 : a dry dehiscent pericarp or fruit that is composed of one or more carpels; especially : legume
2 a : an anatomical pouch
b : a grasshopper egg case
3 : a tapered and roughly cylindrical body of ore or mineral
4 : a usually protective container or housing: such as
a : a streamlined compartment (as for fuel) under the wings or fuselage of an aircraft
b : a compartment (as for personnel, a power unit, or an instrument) on a ship or craft
-
Mizzou was never close to being a member, but I'm not sure why. I've been there and it felt like a Big Ten school and it's AAU.
Badge, this isn't a difficult riddle to figure out, it was money. It is always money.
I seriously questioned Nebraska over Mizzou because I thought the money would be better with Mizzou but I now think I was wrong. Nebraska is a true Helmet in football with an enormous regional and a decent national following. Mizzou simply couldn't match that.
Missouri is a much more populous state than Nebraska (~6.1M vs ~1.9M) but my guess is that Missouri has extremely few out-of-state fans. Nebraska, on the other hand, has tons of out-of-state fans such as @FearlessF (https://www.cfb51.com/index.php?action=profile;u=10) . Even in my little town in Ohio I've seen at least two houses flying Cornhusker flags on gamedays.
Nebraska is a special case because, as a Helmet, they have a loyal following much larger than simply population demographics would suggest. Outside of cases like that, conference expansion/realignment is mostly based on population.
- Missouri is at 6.1M and growing anemically.
- Maryland is at 6M and growing faster than Missouri.
- New Jersey is at 9M and growing faster than Missouri.
- Virginia is at 8.5M and growing rapidly.
- North Carolina is at 10.3M (just passed Michigan) and growing rapidly.
I believe, based on this, that the B1G's next targets (and there will be next targets) will be in VA and NC. My best guess remains UVA and UNC.
Bottom line: Missouri makes sense but UVA and UNC make dollars, millions and billions of dollars.
-
Well, no a pod is different than a division. Pods move around to create the divisions.
Exactly, the two terms are NOT interchangeable. The describe different conceptual entities. Divisions are semi-permanent. Pods are combined temporarily to create divisions.
-
Ouch. I can't think of a conference having a worse post than the Pac this year. There is too much money out there for them to stay at the bottom for long.
Exactly! ELA has pointed it out here and elsewhere and he is right, the PAC's athletics this academic year (at least in the revenue sports) have been an unmitigated disaster:
- They missed the CFP
- Missing the CFP should have given them easier bowl match-ups and led to a solid bowl record like it did for the B1G but instead they tanked in their bowls (1-8)
- They only got three NCAA Tournament invites (even worse than the B1G's four). Worse, their three invitees were a four seed and two "last four in" 11-seeds. Worse than that, all three lose their first NCAA game.
That is REALLY bad for a P5 conference. Still, your statement that they are still far closer to the next worst P5 league than they are to the best G5 league is spot on. In the long-run they are clearly among the "haves" and not the "have nots". They'll be back.
-
Exactly! ELA has pointed it out here and elsewhere and he is right, the PAC's athletics this academic year (at least in the revenue sports) have been an unmitigated disaster:
- They missed the CFP
- Missing the CFP should have given them easier bowl match-ups and led to a solid bowl record like it did for the B1G but instead they tanked in their bowls (1-8)
- They only got three NCAA Tournament invites (even worse than the B1G's four). Worse, their three invitees were a four seed and two "last four in" 11-seeds. Worse than that, all three lose their first NCAA game.
That is REALLY bad for a P5 conference. Still, your statement that they are still far closer to the next worst P5 league than they are to the best G5 league is spot on. In the long-run they are clearly among the "haves" and not the "have nots". They'll be back.
Their network is an absolute disaster, and their tv deals, with like 4 games on every Saturday at 11 PM ET are terrible. I agree I'd rather be them than the American, but I don't think the gap between #4 and #5 is going to do anything but grow.
The only thing that can help them would be a move from 5 to 4 power conferences, and given geography I feel like they almost have to be one of the survivors. I'd be curious about some kind of aggressive move by the Big XII though to go after the Arizona and California schools though to go from 10 to 16 and ensure their own survival. Granted a conference stretching from Morgantown to LA seems untenable too.
-
Exactly, the two terms are NOT interchangeable. The describe different conceptual entities. Divisions are semi-permanent. Pods are combined temporarily to create divisions.
are you suggesting the 'pods' won't be permanent? teams will move in/out regularly? not even in a lala land fantasy will cfb go to that kind of system.
division simply means it is divided into subsections. it can be 2, 4, 12, 99, whatever. pods are moving containers or plant seeds or something. makes no sense other than some arbitrary word chosen by some idiot (not anyone here, though for the life of me i can't figure out why some here have run with it).
you have conferences, which are divided into more manageable subsections. divisions. this isn't difficult.
-
If this was only about money, redundant schools like MSU, Purdue and NU would not be in the conference anymore. :sign0135:
And if you're gonna sell your soul and invite UNC to the party, you may as well invite Baylor and Louisville too.
I'll find something else to pass the time, I guess.
-
are you suggesting the 'pods' won't be permanent? teams will move in/out regularly? not even in a lala land fantasy will cfb go to that kind of system.
division simply means it is divided into subsections. it can be 2, 4, 12, 99, whatever. pods are moving containers or plant seeds or something. makes no sense other than some arbitrary word chosen by some idiot (not anyone here, though for the life of me i can't figure out why some here have run with it).
you have conferences, which are divided into more manageable subsections. divisions. this isn't difficult.
No, the problem being that if you take a 16 team conference and divide it into 2 divisions of 8, you immediately have 7 games locked in every year. If you only play 8 conference games, you'd play a home and home with each school in the opposite division every 16 years. So what's the point of even having the two divisions be a conference.
So instead of 2 divisions of 8, you have 4 pods of 4, then the pods are split 2 and 2 to make divisions. That way you play all 7 teams in your division, but you are only locked into the 3 teams in your pod, with the other 4 division games rotating.
It's a way to make a 16 team conference work, and still see the other schools more than twice every 16 years.
-
No, the problem being that if you take a 16 team conference and divide it into 2 divisions of 8, you immediately have 7 games locked in every year. If you only play 8 conference games, you'd play a home and home with each school in the opposite division every 16 years. So what's the point of even having the two divisions be a conference.
So instead of 2 divisions of 8, you have 4 pods of 4, then the pods are split 2 and 2 to make divisions. That way you play all 7 teams in your division, but you are only locked into the 3 teams in your pod, with the other 4 division games rotating.
It's a way to make a 16 team conference work, and still see the other schools more than twice every 16 years.
but you're still locking in all 8 teams in divisions to 7 games. no different than now.
i say don't lock together any of the 4 division. you don't need to.
4 conferences 16 team conf.
4 div of 4 teams each.
9 conf games. 3 ooc games.
play every team in conf at least 1 every 4 years.
3 games - play all 3 teams in your division.
3 games - have 1 lock game from each other div (preserves split rivals if need, can scrap if not needed)
3 games - rotate other 3 teams from each other div annually.
(can drop the locked cross-div games and do 6 div crossover games, 2 from each div, and play everyone in conf every other year.)
3 games - play 1 team from each of the 3 other conferences.
add 1 game to schedule, conf tourney rd 1. rotate the div vs each other (div a vs b, c vs d year 1, a vs c, b vs d year 2, etc.)
then conf title game.
then each conf champ goes to rd 1 of cfb playoff.
-
No, the problem being that if you take a 16 team conference and divide it into 2 divisions of 8, you immediately have 7 games locked in every year. If you only play 8 conference games, you'd play a home and home with each school in the opposite division every 16 years. So what's the point of even having the two divisions be a conference.
ding ding ding
16 teams is too many for a conference
the ONLY reason to have 16 teams bundled into a conference is for ease of negotiation for TV network content contracts
pods accomplish two things: they make it possible for two teams in a 16 team conference play regularly more often than 16 years (good) they also make it impossible for more than 4 teams to play every year (bad)
I'd much rather have 2 divisions of 8, play the 7 teams every stinking season to promote rivalries. If you want to play a team in the other division fine, either every year or every 16 years. If a team from the west doesn't want to play a team from the east, that's fine for me.
-
but you're still locking in all 8 teams in divisions to 7 games. no different than now.
i say don't lock together any of the 4 division. you don't need to.
4 conferences 16 team conf.
4 div of 4 teams each.
9 conf games. 3 ooc games.
play every team in conf at least 1 every 4 years.
3 games - play all 3 teams in your division.
3 games - have 1 lock game from each other div (preserves split rivals if need, can scrap if not needed)
3 games - rotate other 3 teams from each other div annually.
(can drop the locked cross-div games and do 6 div crossover games, 2 from each div, and play everyone in conf every other year.)
3 games - play 1 team from each of the 3 other conferences.
add 1 game to schedule, conf tourney rd 1. rotate the div vs each other (div a vs b, c vs d year 1, a vs c, b vs d year 2, etc.)
then conf title game.
then each conf champ goes to rd 1 of cfb playoff.
No, it's not the same thing. You aren't locking in 7 games. You are locking in 3. You are just ensuring that the 8 teams in the same division play 7 common opponents in a year. In yours the schedules between teams are too variant for a good comparison.
With pods you ensure that a given division is playing 7/8 a common schedule, but that you get to see every team in the conference more often. Assuming the pods rotate in 2 year increments to allow for home and homes, you are seeing each team home and home every 6 years if they aren't in your pod, as opposed to every 16 years.
-
No, it's not the same thing. You aren't locking in 7 games. You are locking in 3. You are just ensuring that the 8 teams in the same division play 7 common opponents in a year. In yours the schedules between teams are too variant for a good comparison.
With pods you ensure that a given division is playing 7/8 a common schedule, but that you get to see every team in the conference more often. Assuming the pods rotate in 2 year increments to allow for home and homes, you are seeing each team home and home every 6 years if they aren't in your pod, as opposed to every 16 years.
2 things:
1 - in my scenario each team in each div would play a comparable schedule. i've set up this for the sec before and it works much better for comparable schedules than the current setup.
and every team in the conference would play everyone else in conference at least every other year if you rotate correctly (disregarding h/a), and home/away every 3 years (4 if you do not use the cross div lock), and at worst play each team every 5 year, and home/away at worst 6 years (if using the lock and use the worst possible way to schedule).
2 - in your scenario, just call them divisions, cause that's still what they are. if you want to rotate full div crossovers, fine. but no reason to call them pods. it's still just a 4 div system, with div a playing all of div b, and div c and d likewise. rotate for year 3 a/c, b/d, etc. still just divisions.
scenarios aside, it's more about terminology. neither of these are breaking down a conf more than once. not in any practical sense.
-
Badge, this isn't a difficult riddle to figure out, it was money. It is always money.
I seriously questioned Nebraska over Mizzou because I thought the money would be better with Mizzou but I now think I was wrong. Nebraska is a true Helmet in football with an enormous regional and a decent national following. Mizzou simply couldn't match that.
Missouri is a much more populous state than Nebraska (~6.1M vs ~1.9M) but my guess is that Missouri has extremely few out-of-state fans. Nebraska, on the other hand, has tons of out-of-state fans such as @FearlessF (https://www.cfb51.com/index.php?action=profile;u=10) . Even in my little town in Ohio I've seen at least two houses flying Cornhusker flags on gamedays.
Nebraska is a special case because, as a Helmet, they have a loyal following much larger than simply population demographics would suggest. Outside of cases like that, conference expansion/realignment is mostly based on population.
- Missouri is at 6.1M and growing anemically.
- Maryland is at 6M and growing faster than Missouri.
- New Jersey is at 9M and growing faster than Missouri.
- Virginia is at 8.5M and growing rapidly.
- North Carolina is at 10.3M (just passed Michigan) and growing rapidly.
I believe, based on this, that the B1G's next targets (and there will be next targets) will be in VA and NC. My best guess remains UVA and UNC.
Bottom line: Missouri makes sense but UVA and UNC make dollars, millions and billions of dollars.
Hence the realism of my 4x4 pods scenario....
tOSU isn't lumped in with the newbies, UNC + UVA give the 2 B10 newbies 2 friends and there's a pod. Or division. Or section. Or quartet.
Getting hung up on the nomenclature just slows the conversation, guys....
-
So you B10ers, say these are you 16 schools. Due to politics and what-not, how would you quarterize them?
Iowa, UNL, Minn, Wisc, NW, ILL, IU, PU, M, MSU, tOSU, PSU, Rut, Md, UVA, UNC
Would tOSU and Michigan get priority seating? I really think the eastern 4 are a no-brainer, but you may be left with a super-pod of M-OSU-MSU-PSU. Would that be a bad thing? The western 4 are easy, too.
My guess was western 4, eastern 4, then mix-match the power-pod up with the IL/IN pairs. But that's just my ignorant guesswork.
-
Would tOSU and Michigan get priority seating?
duh
-
Outside of cases like that, conference expansion/realignment is mostly based on population.
- Missouri is at 6.1M and growing anemically.
- Maryland is at 6M and growing faster than Missouri.
- New Jersey is at 9M and growing faster than Missouri.
- Virginia is at 8.5M and growing rapidly.
- North Carolina is at 10.3M (just passed Michigan) and growing rapidly.
I believe, based on this, that the B1G's next targets (and there will be next targets) will be in VA and NC. My best guess remains UVA and UNC.
Bottom line: Missouri makes sense but UVA and UNC make dollars, millions and billions of dollars.
Just a small caveat to the population assumption. It based off media markets (which usually lines of with states, but not always.)
When the BTN was first released PSU claimed most of Pennsylvania, but was not awarded the Philadelphia Media Market. When Rutgers and Maryland was added the cable company then also included Philly.
Rutgers was a priority get not because of the 9 Million in Jersey, but the 19 million in the NYC Media Market.
Missouri would bring in all the smaller markets in the state (6 million) but also both Kansas City (33rd, 900k) and St. Louis (21, 1.2 milion) Media Markets, half of such population resides in a different state. St. Loius is part of the anemic growth of Missouri, but Kansas City is one of the fastest growing markets.
I also counter that Virginia and North Carolina would not bring the entire state under their media market banner. In fact I would argue in NC, we would almost end up with the Longhorn Network type deal that the majority of the state would revoke the BTN on the premises that they would rather see the other 3 schools over UNC.
Duke has more football fans than UNC (http://carolinablitz.com/2014/10/03/duke-football-has-more-fans-in-north-carolina-than-unc/)
In fact looking at the map UNC is non-existent as a majority across the state.
Just random musings of a know nothing football fanatic.
-
Doesn't Illinois bring in the St. Louis market for BTN? Thought I read that somewhere.
-
Doesn't Illinois bring in the St. Louis market for BTN? Thought I read that somewhere.
It didn't initially have it. It may have been added if there was a high enough demand. That football map says the city belongs to Missouri. So BTN could ask for more money to keep coverage in the city.
BTN In Network Rate on average is like a $1.50. Out of Network Rate is about $0.15. Lot more money if they can prove the market is In Network.
This is one reason I actually argue against Rutgers and the NYC market. Across all of Ohio Subscribers pay $1.85, but in NYC they pay $0.18. Heck of a lot of people in NYC able to see games, but more money comes from the Midwest.
-
For those who think the 4x16 look with pods is too NFL-ish for you, keep in mind one thing. The NFL system almost guarantees 9-7 or 10-6 teams get into the playoffs.
In the 4x16 setup, only the conference champions would get in. So while they could schedule tough OOC, I assume they'll mostly schedule the same as they do now - want some gimmies mixed in with some challenges, and we'd have only 12-0, 11-1, or 10-2 type teams getting into the 4-team playoff.
Normally, in the current setup, I'm against a conference champs-only playoff, but in the 4x16 scenario, all teams are on equal footing. All have an equal chance from the start, and all will have worthwhile schedule strength.
-
Normally, in the current setup, I'm against a conference champs-only playoff, but in the 4x16 scenario, all teams are on equal footing. All have an equal chance from the start, and all will have worthwhile schedule strength.
All P5 (or Super 4?) Conferences play:
3 OOC - No FCS, 1 needs to be P5
9 Conference games
Divisions winners get to add a tough
1 CCG
I would buy into that.
I really want all P5 conferences to to play like minded schedules. If that means they all play 8 games or 9 (I prefer 9) then they all do it.
No FCS, 1 FCS (prefer none) then all do it.
Must Play 1 P5 H-H or H-H-N, or N, or don't just keep the schedules closer so we can he fans can get a better feel for who actually is performing the best.
It makes me mad to see SEC playing FCS the 2nd to last week of the season. It's smart they do it, real smart kudos for their schedule. But so annoying no one else is doing it so there is an artificial harder season end for the other P5. I would like it if all conferences had to play on a level field (as level as we can schedule it.)
-
Doesn't Illinois bring in the St. Louis market for BTN? Thought I read that somewhere.
Honestly, do you actually care? This is the worst problem with the current expansion/realignment discussions, every random college football fan attempts to become an expert in Nielsen ratings and television revenue markets.
If you actually care about that crap, then you're a pretty pathetic college football fan. Just my opinion, of course.
-
Honestly, do you actually care? This is the worst problem with the current expansion/realignment discussions, every random college football fan attempts to become an expert in Nielsen ratings and television revenue markets.
If you actually care about that crap, then you're a pretty pathetic college football fan. Just my opinion, of course.
Well I don't want to be a pathetic college football fan...
But with ratings come eyeballs. With eyeballs comes recruiting. There is more to expansion than just TV dollars.
-
Honestly, do you actually care? This is the worst problem with the current expansion/realignment discussions, every random college football fan attempts to become an expert in Nielsen ratings and television revenue markets.
If you actually care about that crap, then you're a pretty pathetic college football fan. Just my opinion, of course.
heck no, all any of us really care about is wins and losses for our favorite team
unfortunately, there is a correlation with winning and money
longhorn fans understand this
I don't think Horn fans care too much about leading the nation in $$$, but it probably does help with wins and losses
-
I don't think Horn fans care too much about leading the nation in $$$, but it probably does help with wins and losses
Money helps Texas with wins and losses?
Anyway, I do care about the BTN and ratings, only because I happen to think that it will be the only way to see my favorite team in the near future. I'm not sure why that would make me a pathetic fan.
-
BTN2Go
-
Yep. I use it quite a bit in the harbor.
-
I also have "watchTVeverywhere"
I'm old and do prefer my 50 inch TV in front of my recliner - and I can stream to it.
-
I'm not sure why that would make me a pathetic fan.
Not sure you were the one getting called pathetic.
-
So if tOSU and Michigan got to make the B10 pods in the 16-school version of the conference, how would they do it? Would they want annual big games or would they put themselves in with 3 patsies? Does it matter all that much if they play every other school at least every other year?
I'm asking for (gulp) realism-sake.
-
OSU and Michigan in the same 4-team pod?
or locked annual rivalry games between pods to really complicate things?
-
West - UNL, Iowa, Minn, Wisc
Central - NU, ILL, IU, PU
East - Rut, Md, UNC, UVA
Big-Boy Pants - M, OSU, MSU, PSU
To help people understand the scheduling of this, we'll pretend to be Michigan and assume a 9-game conference schedule. We'll play every other B10 school every 2 years, which means a home-and-home with everyone within every 4 years (one player's career).
Michigan 2018
@OSU
MSU
@PSU
Rut
@Md
NU
@ILL
UNL
@Iowa
Michigan 2019
OSU
@MSU
PSU
@UNC
UVA
@IU
PU
@Minn
Wisc
Michigan 2020
@OSU
MSU
@PSU
@Rut
Md
@NU
ILL
@UNL
Iowa
Michigan 2021
OSU
@MSU
PSU
UNC
@UVA
IU
@PU
Minn
@Wisc
So despite a 16-school mega-conference, this schedule does a helluva lot better job than the current 12 or 14-school conferences. If you're a recruit, you know you'll see everyone else at least twice, including both home and away.
It may seem big and imposing and crazy, but the 4x4 pods idea is too prudent to not implement when we get there.
-
I quit reading after I was asked to pretend that we're Michigan.
-
Not sure you were the one getting called pathetic.
I'm sure.
UTee quoted me before he replied to me:
Quote from: 847badgerfan on March 17, 2018, 01:50:57 PM (https://www.cfb51.com/index.php?topic=3109.msg40906#msg40906)
Doesn't Illinois bring in the St. Louis market for BTN? Thought I read that somewhere.
Honestly, do you actually care? This is the worst problem with the current expansion/realignment discussions, every random college football fan attempts to become an expert in Nielsen ratings and television revenue markets.
If you actually care about that crap, then you're a pretty pathetic college football fan. Just my opinion, of course.
-
West - UNL, Iowa, Minn, Wisc
Central - NU, ILL, IU, PU
East - Rut, Md, UNC, UVA
Big-Boy Pants - M, OSU, MSU, PSU
Only problem is that you completely lose competitive balance. The Central pod might as well just be called patsies. [And yes, I know my school is in there.]
You have to put M and OSU in the same pod. It's not good for the conference when they don't play each other. The question is whether you try to ALSO preserve the M/MSU rivalry or not. I'd vote no; M gets one rivalry preserved and that's going to be OSU.
I also think the in-state rivalries of NU/ILL and PU/IU are worth keeping. Not because of any reason other than they're in-state and involve teams that aren't major problems for competitive balance to affect things.
I'd propose the below:
West - UNL, IA, MN, WI
Central 1 - NU, ILL, MSU, PSU --- OR --- NU, ILL, M, OSU
Central 2 - M, OSU, PU, IU --- OR --- MSU, PSU, PU, IU
East - RU, MD, UNC, UVA
The first option causes a bit of a problem because it makes PSU travel farther to the state of Illinois. The second makes more geographic sense as Ohio/Ann Arbor/Chicago/Champaign seems more doable than making PSU go that far west.
PSU unfortunately becomes the odd man out in either scenario, as they don't make sense with the 4-team East nexus and yet they're far enough east that it's tough to pair them with teams too far west. But I think you could go either way with the central regions I mentioned.
-
PSU has been the odd man since they joined
-
PSU has been the odd man since they joined
True, but I think the addition of MD and RU might help to create an east coast nexus.
For example, if the B1G were able to add Oklahoma and Texas, you could have a pod of OSU/PSU/MD/RU, and PSU would fit nicely there. Or if you added something like just WVU, and then a more western school like Kansas, you could have PSU/MD/RU/WV, and that would fit.
But if we assume that the most likely adds are UVA/UNC, you've just excluded PSU from the East group, and then you have to figure out how to fit them into the middle.
-
Only problem is that you completely lose competitive balance. The Central pod might as well just be called patsies. [And yes, I know my school is in there.]
You have to put M and OSU in the same pod. It's not good for the conference when they don't play each other. The question is whether you try to ALSO preserve the M/MSU rivalry or not. I'd vote no; M gets one rivalry preserved and that's going to be OSU.
I also think the in-state rivalries of NU/ILL and PU/IU are worth keeping. Not because of any reason other than they're in-state and involve teams that aren't major problems for competitive balance to affect things.
I'd propose the below:
West - UNL, IA, MN, WI
Central 1 - NU, ILL, MSU, PSU --- OR --- NU, ILL, M, OSU
Central 2 - M, OSU, PU, IU --- OR --- MSU, PSU, PU, IU
East - RU, MD, UNC, UVA
The first option causes a bit of a problem because it makes PSU travel farther to the state of Illinois. The second makes more geographic sense as Ohio/Ann Arbor/Chicago/Champaign seems more doable than making PSU go that far west.
PSU unfortunately becomes the odd man out in either scenario, as they don't make sense with the 4-team East nexus and yet they're far enough east that it's tough to pair them with teams too far west. But I think you could go either way with the central regions I mentioned.
I have always believed that you HAVE to have a "Helmet" in each pod and that is the reason we took Nebraska. From there everything falls into place:
- Nebraska's obvious pod-mates are MN, UW, and IA
- PSU's obvious pod-mates are UMD, UVA, UNC
- MSU has to go with Michigan so they need two more. Since Michigan will have a cross-over rivalry with Ohio State it makes sense to just fill that in by sticking the two northern IN/IL schools with the Michigan schools and the two southern IN/IL schools with tOSU and the odd man out, Rutgers.
I think that OAM's pods make no sense because the competitive balance isn't there. MSU gets an impossibly difficult situation and the "central" is WAY too weak.
-
That's assuming there are protected rivalries. I wouldn't make that assumption. It will cause all sorts of issues with the scheduling to put UM and OSU in different pods and actually protect their rivalry.
-
So if tOSU and Michigan got to make the B10 pods in the 16-school version of the conference, how would they do it? Would they want annual big games or would they put themselves in with 3 patsies? Does it matter all that much if they play every other school at least every other year?
I'm asking for (gulp) realism-sake.
It isn't just about the "Helmets", it is also about everybody else being able to sell tickets and make money. When Ohio State, Michigan, or Nebraska comes to town the stadiums in West Lafayette, Champaign, etc fill up. That matters too!
-
That's assuming there are protected rivalries. I wouldn't make that assumption. It will cause all sorts of issues with the scheduling to put UM and OSU in different pods and actually protect their rivalry.
That is another benefit of pods, they allow for protected rivalries. With the 14 team, two divisions of seven model that we currently have only IU and PU have a protected rivalry. For them:
- They play their six division-mates every year
- They play each other every year
- That accounts for seven games and only leaves two more to play the other six teams. With sixteen teams in two eight-team divisions you would need seven games just to play your division-mates. If you had a protected cross-over then you would have eight games every year and only one extra to play the other seven teams. It would take 14 years to host and travel to each of them. With Pods that isn't an issue.
-
I'm going with
"West:" Wisconsin, Minnesota, Iowa, Nebraska
"Crappy:" Indiana, Purdue, Illinois, Northwestern (sorry, Northwestern!)
"East:" MSU, OSU, Michigan, PSU
"Why are they here:" Maryland, Rutgers, UNC, UVA
-
Money helps Texas with wins and losses?
Anyway, I do care about the BTN and ratings, only because I happen to think that it will be the only way to see my favorite team in the near future. I'm not sure why that would make me a pathetic fan.
Sorry badge, I wasn't singling you out there although it looked like it, was just lamenting the situation. It was a general observation-- college football fans worrying about which schools "carry" which television markets is just one of the many horrible symptoms of the rapidly spreading disease within the sport.
-
It isn't just about the "Helmets", it is also about everybody else being able to sell tickets and make money. When Ohio State, Michigan, or Nebraska comes to town the stadiums in West Lafayette, Champaign, etc fill up. That matters too!
I know it does. That's why I'm asking for input. I know my pods aren't realistic. That's why I'm asking for other ideas.
-
That is another benefit of pods, they allow for protected rivalries. With the 14 team, two divisions of seven model that we currently have only IU and PU have a protected rivalry. For them:
- They play their six division-mates every year
- They play each other every year
- That accounts for seven games and only leaves two more to play the other six teams. With sixteen teams in two eight-team divisions you would need seven games just to play your division-mates. If you had a protected cross-over then you would have eight games every year and only one extra to play the other seven teams. It would take 14 years to host and travel to each of them. With Pods that isn't an issue.
In a 16-school conference with pods, you sabotage the wonderful scheduling potential by having out-of-pod protected rivalries. Horrible idea.
Looks to me like a B10 + UNC + UVA pod system has it easy with the
West - UNL, Iowa, Minn, Wisc
East - Rut, UMd, UNC, UVa
The mess is in the middle. Without protected rivalries, because we want schools to play EVERYONE else every 2 years (and home-and-home with EVERYONE every 4 years), we ensure M-OSU in a pod.
Michigan, Ohio St, ____, ______
Those 2 spots plus the last pod are made up of MSU, PSU, PU, IU, ILL, NU. Those in-state pairs will want to be annual rivals, so yes, we are left with MSU and PSU. Sorry, but that's a red-headed stepchild and the guy who showed up 75 years after the party started.
Stick the IN schools with M and OSU and the IL schools with MSU and PSU. It's not that big a deal, to be honest. It could be mapped out so that MSU plays Michigan one year and OSU the next, forever. They'll play one or the other every year. Indiana will play Nebraska and UNC and EVERYONE ELSE every other year.
It's a great system.
-
The weird part about all this is if the SEC went east instead of west. Say, it took NC State and VA Tech instead of Okie St and KU....
A&M, LSU, Ark, Mizz - WEST
OM, MSU, ALA, Aub - DEEP SOUTH
UF, UGA, USCe, Vandy - EAST
Tenn, UK, NCST, VT - APPALACHIA
What would come of Kansas? It's a big basketball get. Perhaps too far for the PAC, and too little history with Texas/OU, wherever they went. They could join the B10 (AAU status), but with what partner? I'd take UNC over UVA, and KU over UVA, but would the B10 leapfrog the state of Virginia?
There's a ton of HS talent in VA Beach/Newport News/Norfolk area.
-
How about this?
West - UNL, Iowa, Minn, Wisc
Central - NU, ILL, IU, PU
East - PSU, Md, UNC, UVA
Midwest - M, OSU, MSU, Rut
A different way to split up the M-OSU-PSU triumvirate? I really believe the more you can keep them regional, the better. Maybe even at the expense of evening out the helmets.
-
There just aren't any good ways to quarter a 16 school Big Ten. Even now, the halves of 14 are not balanced by helmet.
For today, I would like to send Purdue East and Michigan West. No more locked crossover for Purdue, but Michigan takes that over so it can play Ohio State yearly.
-
Add Texas and Oklahoma to the B1G West.
Slide Purdue to the B1G East.
Three helmets in each Division, with the divisions divided along the time zone.
Badda bing, badda boom. Zen-like balance.
-
It might happen. Stranger things have, that's for sure.
-
PSU has been the odd man since they joined
Which is both sad and true, as UNL joined and became a better 'fit' and were welcomed more than Penn State ever was. PSU only now benefits from the fact that RU and UMd are both more terrible fits.
-
I loved the PSU addition at the time and I still do, but the man in Ann Arbor did not like it at all. I think that led to a lot of the angst.
-
I think of the two "helmets", moving UM west makes no sense. They have a stronger east coast alumni base than any other school. If the goal is simply to move a helmet, OSU to the West makes more sense than UM.
-
Add Texas and Oklahoma to the B1G West.
Slide Purdue to the B1G East.
Three helmets in each Division, with the divisions divided along the time zone.
Badda bing, badda boom. Zen-like balance.
Those divisions make natural sense and I like that. They also should be at least reasonably balanced and I like that.
The thing I would like about eight team divisions is that even with nine games each team would play:
- Their seven division mates every year
- The eight teams in the other division every fourth year (two per year) so that eight years would elapse between hosting and eight years between travelling to each of the schools in the "Other" division.
I wouldn't mind having eight years between hosting/visiting the B1G-W newbies (UNL, OU, TX) but I would be sad that long-time conference mates IL, NU, UW, MN, and IA would feel like OOC games based on the infrequency.
-
Those divisions make natural sense and I like that. They also should be at least reasonably balanced and I like that.
The thing I would like about eight team divisions is that even with nine games each team would play:
- Their seven division mates every year
- The eight teams in the other division every fourth year (two per year) so that eight years would elapse between hosting and eight years between travelling to each of the schools in the "Other" division.
I wouldn't mind having eight years between hosting/visiting the B1G-W newbies (UNL, OU, TX) but I would be sad that long-time conference mates IL, NU, UW, MN, and IA would feel like OOC games based on the infrequency.
They should have courted Oklahoma and Texas instead of Maryland and Rutgers, obviously. But now we are putting the toothpaste back in the tube.
-
I loved the PSU addition at the time and I still do, but the man in Ann Arbor did not like it at all. I think that led to a lot of the angst.
Three institutions voted no. The only institution to own up to it for years was IU, however several AD's and prominent coaches were openly against PSU joining due to the fact the negotiations were done very much in secret and only at the president level.
Delany acknowledged there was "a lot of turmoil" last December over the lack of communication between the Council of Ten and their athletic and faculty representatives.
"I don't think anyone can dispute that. There's been differences of opinion," he said. "Perhaps if we had it to do all over again, we'd use a different process, a process with more consultation. But that's water over the bridge."
-
Sorry badge, I wasn't singling you out there although it looked like it, was just lamenting the situation. It was a general observation-- college football fans worrying about which schools "carry" which television markets is just one of the many horrible symptoms of the rapidly spreading disease within the sport.
becareful
there are some sensative posters here in Big Ten country
-
Those divisions make natural sense and I like that. They also should be at least reasonably balanced and I like that.
The thing I would like about eight team divisions is that even with nine games each team would play:
- Their seven division mates every year
- The eight teams in the other division every fourth year (two per year) so that eight years would elapse between hosting and eight years between travelling to each of the schools in the "Other" division.
I wouldn't mind having eight years between hosting/visiting the B1G-W newbies (UNL, OU, TX) but I would be sad that long-time conference mates IL, NU, UW, MN, and IA would feel like OOC games based on the infrequency.
I think this is the sacrifice you make with conferences that are too large. the seven division mates then form the traditional/regional rivalries that the sport thrives on. And the network gets the content and only negotiates with 5 conferences.
-
becareful
there are some sensative posters here in Big Ten country
This post really hurt my feelings.
In the future could you please provide a trigger warning before infiltrating our safe space with these micro-aggressions?
Thanks.
-
I think this is the sacrifice you make with conferences that are too large. the seven division mates then form the traditional/regional rivalries that the sport thrives on. And the network gets the content and only negotiates with 5 conferences.
IMHO, the pod system fixes this as best as it can be fixed.
With a Pod system and a nine game schedule you play:
- Your three pod-mates every year
- Your three group-mates every year
- The other nine teams in the conference every third year (host/travel to every six years).
For fans of each school it would "feel" like you were in a conference with your pod and group mates.
-
Wasn't the pod system a colossal failure in the Wac?
-
Three institutions voted no. The only institution to own up to it for years was IU, however several AD's and prominent coaches were openly against PSU joining due to the fact the negotiations were done very much in secret and only at the president level.
Delany acknowledged there was "a lot of turmoil" last December over the lack of communication between the Council of Ten and their athletic and faculty representatives.
"I don't think anyone can dispute that. There's been differences of opinion," he said. "Perhaps if we had it to do all over again, we'd use a different process, a process with more consultation. But that's water over the bridge."
https://news.google.com/newspapers?id=8VYrAAAAIBAJ&sjid=_9kEAAAAIBAJ&pg=4454,5055999&dq=penn-state+big-ten+indiana+votes+against&hl=en
-
IMHO, the pod system fixes this as best as it can be fixed.
With a Pod system and a nine game schedule you play:
- Your three pod-mates every year
- Your three group-mates every year
- The other nine teams in the conference every third year (host/travel to every six years).
For fans of each school it would "feel" like you were in a conference with your pod and group mates.
playing 6 instead of 7 teams each year would be OK
so why not simply put six in a group? 16 or 14 divided by 6 doesn't work
-
IMHO, the pod system fixes this as best as it can be fixed.
With a Pod system and a nine game schedule you play:
- Your three pod-mates every year
- Your three group-mates every year
- The other nine teams in the conference every third year (host/travel to every six years).
For fans of each school it would "feel" like you were in a conference with your pod and group mates.
I'd take the only play your pod-mates every year, while playing everyone else within every 2 years, and 4 home-and-home.
-
Wasn't the pod system a colossal failure in the Wac?
No, their XFL-quality of football members is why it failed. Oh, and because it was out west, where nobody cares (relatively speaking).
-
The Wac was fine before they went to pods.
The expansion that necessitated the pods was mostly from the SWC.
It only lasted 3 seasons before the Mountain West split off, which was basically the Wac's 80s line up, only with UNLV and (a little later) TCU in place of Hawaii and UTep.
The Mountain is doing fine, even after losing some marquee members.
-
Frankly the 4-pod Wac rivals only the CFL's ill-advised US expansion as the most short lived revision of a leagues structure in the history of Football.
-
playing 6 instead of 7 teams each year would be OK
so why not simply put six in a group? 16 or 14 divided by 6 doesn't work
Exactly, the math doesn't work. Additionally, the groups are overlapping. Way upthread I posted this Pod/Group alignment:
Pod/Group Group1 Group2 Group3 Group4
North Pod Mich MSU PU NU
East Pod PSU UMD UVA UNC
West Pod UNL Iowa Wisc Minny
South Pod tOSU RU IU IL
- For Michigan fans, it would "feel like" they were in a conference with MSU, PU, NU, PSU, UNL, and tOSU.
- For Michigan State fans, it would "feel like" they were in a conference with M, PU, NU, UMD, IA, and RU.
- For PSU fans, it would "feel like" they were in a conference with UMD, UVA, UNC, M, UNL, and tOSU.
Note the overlap:
- Michigan "shares" PU and NU with MSU but they do not "share" their group rivals with MSU.
- Michigan "shares" UNL and tOSU with PSU but they do not "share" their pod rivals with PSU.
Things that this accomplishes:
- Competitive balance: Each temporary division will have two "helmets" (NE will have M and PSU, NW will have M and UNL, NS will have M and tOSU, SE will have PSU and tOSU, EW will have PSU and UNL, SW will have UNL and tOSU).
- Scheduling/ticket sales for all: Each team will play two "helmets" every year. They will play the "helmet" in their pod annually and they will also always be paired with another helmet in their temporary division. It would probably also be possible to arrange it such that each team hosted one "helmet" every year. Ie, MSU will play Michigan annually so they will host them every other year. Assuming that MSU continues to host Michigan in even-numbered years then I think you could set it up such that they hosted either PSU, UNL, or tOSU in odd numbered years. The same would be true for all of the Group 2, 3, and 4 teams.
- No team gets placed in an impossibly difficult situation. In one example above MSU was in a pod with Michigan, Ohio State, and Penn State. That would make it extremely difficult to ever win a division.
- No team gets placed in a ridiculously easy situation, at least not for long. Last season @ELA (https://www.cfb51.com/index.php?action=profile;u=55) referred to the B1G Championship as the "Badger Invitational". I know it irked @847badgerfan (https://www.cfb51.com/index.php?action=profile;u=5) but the reality is that everybody knew even before the season started that Wisconsin would have to absolutely tank to somehow miss the B1GCG. Based on this grouping the weakest potential division last year would probably have been SW with 0-9 Illinois, 2-7 MN and IU, 3-6 RU and UNL, and 4-5 IA. That is bad with six sub .500 teams but that division would also have included 9-0 Wisconsin and 8-1 Ohio State so it would have had a bona-fide championship race and a strong champion (either way). Ignoring UVA and UNC, the other Division, the NE, would have had a great Championship race between 7-2 PSU, MSU, and NU along with 5-4 contender Michigan.
Note for @TyphonInc (https://www.cfb51.com/index.php?action=profile;u=8) :
I know you hate this and I understand why but I disagree about getting "saddled with" Indiana. Indiana hasn't typically been very good but they are a border state and the games in Bloomington are easy for Ohio State fans to get to. IMHO, the only every-year opponent for Ohio State that I wouldn't be happy about is Rutgers. The others:
- Michigan: THE GAME, no more needs to be said.
- Penn State: Border state, traditional "helmet", this is great, IMHO.
- Nebraska: Lincoln is FAR away (I know, I drove it) and obviously the Cornhuskers are not a historic rival but they are a historic "helmet" and I like this rivalry.
- Illinois: The Illibuck trophy. Nobody outside Columbus cares but up until a few years ago Illinois was Ohio State's longest-running annual series. Illinois is Ohio State's second most frequent opponent and the only team other than Michigan that the Buckeyes have played more than 100 times.
- Indiana: Border State, easy to get to away games (the nickname "Horseshoe West" is apt when Ohio State visits Indiana.
None of us are going to get everything we want so I'd be thrilled with five out of six of Ohio State's annual rivals making geographic, competitive, or historic sense.
Honestly, I think the two schools that get screwed the most in this hypothetical set-up are MSU and Iowa. They get stuck with two eastern schools (RU and UMD) in their group. Everybody else only has one.
-
I want UW to play OSU, UNL, UM, MSU, Iowa, Minnie, IL, IN, PU and IU every year in conference, and I want PSU OOC every other year.
-
Note for @TyphonInc (https://www.cfb51.com/index.php?action=profile;u=8) :
I know you hate this and I understand why but I disagree about getting "saddled with" Indiana. Indiana hasn't typically been very good but they are a border state and the games in Bloomington are easy for Ohio State fans to get to. IMHO, the only every-year opponent for Ohio State that I wouldn't be happy about is Rutgers. The others:
- Michigan: THE GAME, no more needs to be said.
- Penn State: Border state, traditional "helmet", this is great, IMHO.
- Nebraska: Lincoln is FAR away (I know, I drove it) and obviously the Cornhuskers are not a historic rival but they are a historic "helmet" and I like this rivalry.
- Illinois: The Illibuck trophy. Nobody outside Columbus cares but up until a few years ago Illinois was Ohio State's longest-running annual series. Illinois is Ohio State's second most frequent opponent and the only team other than Michigan that the Buckeyes have played more than 100 times.
- Indiana: Border State, easy to get to away games (the nickname "Horseshoe West" is apt when Ohio State visits Indiana.
None of us are going to get everything we want so I'd be thrilled with five out of six of Ohio State's annual rivals making geographic, competitive, or historic sense.
Honestly, I think the two schools that get screwed the most in this hypothetical set-up are MSU and Iowa. They get stuck with two eastern schools (RU and UMD) in their group. Everybody else only has one.
@medinabuckeye1
I don't "hate" getting saddled with IU, (even in my geographic pod scenario, I had IU and Ill in OSU's Pod.)
But, I don't like having 3 cup cakes as OSU permanent Pod mates.
And, I don't like adding a 5th East Coast team, causing a non-geographic displacement to become a Pod Member.
Also, I’m not anti Virginia, they would be a great addition to the conference, but I don’t see much of a difference between them and Virginia Tech. Virginia is a top 5 undergrad university, but the B1G has shown a fondness towards Graduate Research and Athletics over undergrad performance; and in those 2 categories I would argue that Tech is the same (Research) or better (Football.) I also think it’s easier to sway a school who has only been in a conference 14 years to change than one who has been there 65. If I’m on the board looking for potential new conference affiliates I’m taking the one that meets academic requirements and has a passionate Football fan Base (ie. Tech.) Both both are wonderful Institutions and the B1G would benefit from their addition.
Can we drop Rutgers?
Question: Do the groups you propose ever change or is this Group/Pod set up permanent? I’m going to assert that you can’t have 4 continuous Kings in a conference. We will have the Tennessee effect, they got stuck playing Alabama every year and has Alabama has become a Titan (Something bigger than a King) Tennessee has fallen, big time. If we force the Historical Kings to keep playing each other one or more will fall from grace.
In my setup you have 3 geographic pods, and 3 performance pods. If One or Two of them they fall from grace, they don’t continue to be OSU’s (or whoever’s) punching bag. In my Performance Pod that resets every 6 years, you take the actual best performing teams and have them playing each other. I think that is what America would rather see that (or learn to) than to see a washed up helmet clinging to glory while getting pounded on the field week in and week out (a la Tennessee.)
-
Exactly, the math doesn't work. Additionally, the groups are overlapping. Way upthread I posted this Pod/Group alignment:
so, bear with my lack of comprehension
do 6 teams play each other annually?
I understand the significance of "the game" and other traditional rivalries being "protected", but I'm all for as many teams as possible playing annually to continue rivalries and develop new rivalries.
If playing 9 conference games, a ten team conference would be best. All teams every season.
Ten conference games would be better.
-
@medinabuckeye1
I don't "hate" getting saddled with IU, (even in my geographic pod scenario, I had IU and Ill in OSU's Pod.)
But, I don't like having 3 cup cakes as OSU permanent Pod mates.
I get this, but I think that having M, PSU, and UNL as "group-mates" makes up for having RU, IU, and IL as "pod-mates".
-
And, I don't like adding a 5th East Coast team, causing a non-geographic displacement to become a Pod Member.
FWIW: This isn't so much my preference as it is my theory of what Big Jim wants. If you look west the obvious addition would be Mizzou and when they practically begged for an invite Big Jim gave them the cold shoulder. With the possible exception of OU/TX no team west of us makes more sense than Mizzou so my thinking is that if Big Jim didn't want Mizzou he doesn't want any western additions.
-
Also, I’m not anti Virginia, they would be a great addition to the conference, but I don’t see much of a difference between them and Virginia Tech. Virginia is a top 5 undergrad university, but the B1G has shown a fondness towards Graduate Research and Athletics over undergrad performance; and in those 2 categories I would argue that Tech is the same (Research) or better (Football.) I also think it’s easier to sway a school who has only been in a conference 14 years to change than one who has been there 65. If I’m on the board looking for potential new conference affiliates I’m taking the one that meets academic requirements and has a passionate Football fan Base (ie. Tech.) Both both are wonderful Institutions and the B1G would benefit from their addition.
Prior to going to the tOSU game at VaTech I would have vehemently disagreed. Two things have changed:
- I looked into Tech's academics. Everyone knows that UVA is a fantastic undergrad school but I was quite surprised to learn that Tech is about as good in research as UVA. That surprised me. You are absolutely right that Graduate Research is a MUCH bigger priority for the B1G than undergrad ranking. That is one reason that I don't think ND would be a good fit. ND fans are incredulous when I tell them that ND doesn't have the academics to fit in the B1G, but they don't. They are a great undergrad school which is why their fans literally think I am joking when I say it, but their Graduate/Research programs would be dead last in the B1G by a pretty big margin. Tech would fit in nicely.
- I was impressed with VaTech's fanbase when we were in Blacksburg.
What I think makes UVA more valuable is that they are closer to DC which is the source of most of the Graduate/Research funding. FWIW, I also think that is why we were so interested in Maryland.
-
Question: Do the groups you propose ever change or is this Group/Pod set up permanent? I’m going to assert that you can’t have 4 continuous Kings in a conference. We will have the Tennessee effect, they got stuck playing Alabama every year and has Alabama has become a Titan (Something bigger than a King) Tennessee has fallen, big time. If we force the Historical Kings to keep playing each other one or more will fall from grace.
In my setup you have 3 geographic pods, and 3 performance pods. If One or Two of them they fall from grace, they don’t continue to be OSU’s (or whoever’s) punching bag. In my Performance Pod that resets every 6 years, you take the actual best performing teams and have them playing each other. I think that is what America would rather see that (or learn to) than to see a washed up helmet clinging to glory while getting pounded on the field week in and week out (a la Tennessee.)
I see the groups as being semi-permanent for several reasons:
- It isn't just about the "helmets" it is also about everybody else. Look, a Minnesota fan would MUCH rather watch their team beat a bad Michigan team than a bad Purdue team. Beating a helmet, even if they happen to suck when you beat them still carries a certain cache that you just don't get from beating a non-helmet even if they are pretty good.
- The helmets have a tendency to rebound so I think that six years is way too short. If you had reset based on 2005-2010 Michigan certainly would not have been in the top group. Over those six years they went 7-5, 11-2, 9-4, 3-9, 5-7, and 7-6. I do believe that a "helmet" could eventually be surpassed but it would take a lot more than six years for me. Wisconsin, for example, has been a lot better than Nebraska over the past six years but I still consider Nebraska to be at least a borderline helmet while Wisconsin isn't. If Wisconsin continues to excel while Nebraska continues to suck for the next 20+ years, then maybe.
-
so, bear with my lack of comprehension
do 6 teams play each other annually?
Yes and no.
Each team would have six teams that they would play every year, but they wouldn't be a group of seven playing each other annually because the pods/groups overlap. Here is the grouping:
Pod/Group Group1 Group2 Group3 Group4
North Pod Mich MSU PU NU
East Pod PSU UMD UVA UNC
West Pod UNL Iowa Wisc Minny
South Pod tOSU RU IU IL
Each team would play the other three teams in their row and the other three teams in their column every year. However, that isn't a group of seven teams all playing each other because the other teams in that row are in different columns and the other teams in that column are in different rows.
-
ok, this is what I expected
then of course it's not my favorite because I feel it's needed to play each and every year to develop the relationship(rivalry)
the Huskers playing the Sooners home and home in 2000 & 2001, skipping 2002 & 2003, then playing in 2004 & 2005 ruined the rivalry and would for any teams
pods only make this worse - only 3 other teams played each and every season
I'd much rather have two 8 team division that play the other 7 teams each season - adding 2 protected annual cross overs would be great, 9 games every season against a conference foe - if you never play a particular team from the other division so be it.
Going to 10 conference games would be better yet
-
https://news.google.com/newspapers?id=8VYrAAAAIBAJ&sjid=_9kEAAAAIBAJ&pg=4454,5055999&dq=penn-state+big-ten+indiana+votes+against&hl=en
Big 2 RBI day for Fred Scott in that old newspaper post!
-
ok, this is what I expected
then of course it's not my favorite because I feel it's needed to play each and every year to develop the relationship(rivalry)
Well in what I proposed each team would have six "every-year" rivals. The oddity of it is that they aren't a group of seven because the pods and groups overlap.
Nebraska, in my proposal, would have three "geographic" every-year rivals (IA, UW, MN) and three "helmet" every-year rivals (M, PSU, tOSU).
-
Travel distances for my proposed pods:
- North Pod: Mich->MSU->PU->NU is 456mi (https://www.google.com/maps/dir/Michigan+State+University,+Trowbridge+Rd,+East+Lansing,+MI/University+of+Michigan,+Ann+Arbor,+MI/Purdue+University,+Purdue+Mall,+West+Lafayette,+IN/Northwestern+University,+Clark+Street,+Evanston,+IL/@41.5725713,-86.7906104,8z/data=!3m1!4b1!4m26!4m25!1m5!1m1!1s0x8822c259da888d63:0x6e9898ab05aa3b3f!2m2!1d-84.4821719!2d42.701848!1m5!1m1!1s0x883cae3890ef50bd:0x235b5e588c8e4ac8!2m2!1d-83.7371794!2d42.2783714!1m5!1m1!1s0x8812fd37423e0507:0x8eccb2cf8b1a7c8e!2m2!1d-86.9211946!2d40.4237054!1m5!1m1!1s0x880fd00b703e4c39:0x2c37b567fad56106!2m2!1d-87.675267!2d42.0564594!3e0?hl=en).
- East Pod: PSU->UMD->UVA->UNC is 518mi (https://www.google.com/maps/dir/Penn+State+University,+College+Township,+PA/University+of+Maryland,+College+Park,+MD/University+of+Virginia,+Charlottesville,+VA/University+of+North+Carolina+at+Chapel+Hill,+Chapel+Hill,+NC/@38.3411432,-80.2646137,7z/data=!3m1!4b1!4m26!4m25!1m5!1m1!1s0x89cea6228cf2afef:0xfb5f04cd544613dd!2m2!1d-77.8608888!2d40.8072337!1m5!1m1!1s0x89b7c6bd3e9aaaab:0xd48e8bdda5e4da9a!2m2!1d-76.9425543!2d38.9869183!1m5!1m1!1s0x89b38648b749c4dd:0x405108c2cc8b5846!2m2!1d-78.5079772!2d38.0335529!1m5!1m1!1s0x89acc2d2cb17aaeb:0xb33bf0976497e0e0!2m2!1d-79.0469134!2d35.9049122!3e0?hl=en).
- West Pod: UNL->IA->UW->MN is 750mi (https://www.google.com/maps/dir/University+of+Nebraska-Lincoln+Libraries,+Lincoln,+NE/The+University+of+Iowa,+Iowa+City,+IA/University+of+Wisconsin-Madison,+Madison,+WI/University+of+Minnesota,+Minneapolis,+MN/@42.8772826,-95.2411802,7z/data=!3m1!4b1!4m26!4m25!1m5!1m1!1s0x8796bee374b3826d:0x3938f9b65412f7a8!2m2!1d-96.7025721!2d40.8178113!1m5!1m1!1s0x87e441f249bfffff:0x4bd1e33fb1e73261!2m2!1d-91.5548998!2d41.6626963!1m5!1m1!1s0x8807ac950a7f481d:0xc9e065e091733a64!2m2!1d-89.4124875!2d43.076592!1m5!1m1!1s0x52b32d69f70ac7ff:0xe31217a152df9978!2m2!1d-93.2277285!2d44.97399!3e0?hl=en).
- South Pod: RU->tOSU->IU->IL is 901mi (https://www.google.com/maps/dir/Rutgers,+The+State+University+of+NJ,+College+Avenue,+New+Brunswick,+NJ/The+Ohio+State+University,+Columbus,+OH/Indiana+University+Bloomington,+South+Indiana+Avenue,+Bloomington,+IN/University+of+Illinois+at+Urbana-Champaign,+Champaign,+IL/@39.7593429,-85.8058418,6z/data=!3m1!4b1!4m26!4m25!1m5!1m1!1s0x89c3c66e07cd0107:0x6231ca955a9dfc38!2m2!1d-74.4467958!2d40.4981958!1m5!1m1!1s0x88388e8fdde8a7b3:0xab2cd8082156878f!2m2!1d-83.0309143!2d40.0141905!1m5!1m1!1s0x886c66c26789ad33:0x3499a08bb315d436!2m2!1d-86.5129458!2d39.1745704!1m5!1m1!1s0x880cd724a92655e9:0xa53c0525046826fa!2m2!1d-88.2271615!2d40.1019523!3e0?hl=en).
I think this is one of the things that @TyphonInc (https://www.cfb51.com/index.php?action=profile;u=8) doesn't like about this. The North and East Pods are pretty geographically tight. Even the West Pod is pretty much as tight as you can get in that area due to lower population density out West. The South Pod is the odd one and it is pretty much all because of Rutgers. Urbana-Champaign->Bloomington->Columbus is only 391mi (https://www.google.com/maps/dir/University+of+Illinois+at+Urbana-Champaign,+Champaign,+IL/Indiana+University+Bloomington,+South+Indiana+Avenue,+Bloomington,+IN/The+Ohio+State+University,+Columbus,+OH/@39.6477703,-86.7450867,8z/data=!3m1!4b1!4m20!4m19!1m5!1m1!1s0x880cd724a92655e9:0xa53c0525046826fa!2m2!1d-88.2271615!2d40.1019523!1m5!1m1!1s0x886c66c26789ad33:0x3499a08bb315d436!2m2!1d-86.5129458!2d39.1745704!1m5!1m1!1s0x88388e8fdde8a7b3:0xab2cd8082156878f!2m2!1d-83.0309143!2d40.0141905!3e0?hl=en) so if the fourth school wasn't 500+ miles East of Columbus the South Pod would be close like the others.
-
Prior to going to the tOSU game at VaTech I would have vehemently disagreed. Two things have changed:
- I looked into Tech's academics. Everyone knows that UVA is a fantastic undergrad school but I was quite surprised to learn that Tech is about as good in research as UVA. That surprised me. You are absolutely right that Graduate Research is a MUCH bigger priority for the B1G than undergrad ranking. That is one reason that I don't think ND would be a good fit. ND fans are incredulous when I tell them that ND doesn't have the academics to fit in the B1G, but they don't. They are a great undergrad school which is why their fans literally think I am joking when I say it, but their Graduate/Research programs would be dead last in the B1G by a pretty big margin. Tech would fit in nicely.
- I was impressed with VaTech's fanbase when we were in Blacksburg.
What I think makes UVA more valuable is that they are closer to DC which is the source of most of the Graduate/Research funding. FWIW, I also think that is why we were so interested in Maryland.
What I'm not sure is taken into account with respect to schools in Virginia and North Carolina is that the local legislatures are VERY protective of one school being left out. VT and NC State are not going to be allowed to be left in the cold by UNC and UVa gaining prestige, money, etc. If/when conference expansion picks back up, this will be a point of contention worth noting very much at the state gov't level.
-
ok, this is what I expected
then of course it's not my favorite because I feel it's needed to play each and every year to develop the relationship(rivalry)
the Huskers playing the Sooners home and home in 2000 & 2001, skipping 2002 & 2003, then playing in 2004 & 2005 ruined the rivalry and would for any teams
pods only make this worse - only 3 other teams played each and every season
I'd much rather have two 8 team division that play the other 7 teams each season - adding 2 protected annual cross overs would be great, 9 games every season against a conference foe - if you never play a particular team from the other division so be it.
Going to 10 conference games would be better yet
And going to 10-team conferences with traditional, geographical rivalries would be the best yet.
-
What I'm not sure is taken into account with respect to schools in Virginia and North Carolina is that the local legislatures are VERY protective of one school being left out. VT and NC State are not going to be allowed to be left in the cold by UNC and UVa gaining prestige, money, etc. If/when conference expansion picks back up, this will be a point of contention worth noting very much at the state gov't level.
Agreed, but if the B10 works in concert with another conference (say, the SEC), then the states of VA and NC would be halved by each conference. I'm not sure why NC has 4 P5 schools to begin with, but if they're assured 2 of them would be picked up by big-boy conferences, they'd probably sign off on it, as long as they signed an agreement to play each other OOC (UVA-VT and UNC-NCST or whoever).
-
My pods:
RU>UMd>UVA>UNC...502 mi
PSU>MSU>PU>IU...816 mi
IL>NU>M>OSU...597 mi
UNL>IA>MN>WIS...750 mi
Silly pods (West, Central, Big Boy, East):
RU>UMd>UVa>UNC...502 mi
MSU>M>OSU>PSU...574
NU>IL>PU>IU...359
UNL>IA>MN>WIS...750
That is some regional fooseball right thar......
-
The interesting thing about the 4x4 pods system that hasn't been brought up is that it can either incorporate a conference championship game....or not. There's no need for one. Best record (w/ tiebreakers) would be perfectly fine, with the diversity of schedules - it's more unlikely for the schedules to be that radically different, quality-wise than what we currently have in smaller conferences.
14 school conference now - play everyone in your division, play either a permanent rival + 1 rotating spot from the other division or 2 rotating spots. Either way, it's potentially unfair to play a top team from the other division every year or even the top 2 at times.
Having the play the top 2 from a pod doesn't mean as much because that's only the top 2 out of 4. All 4 may suck. A school could dominate its pod and still merely be an average team (losing the other 5-6 other conf games). Yes, the stars could align against you, and you end up playing the top team in each of the other 3 pods, but again, each of them isn't guaranteed to be a big-boy team, like the top 1-2 of a 7-team division would almost certainly be.
-
Honestly, the more I explore the possibility of it, the better it looks. Funny how 16 being a square number really opens up interesting outcomes - better outcomes than what we have with a smaller, 14-school conference.
-
Honestly, the more I explore the possibility of it, the better it looks. Funny how 16 being a square number really opens up interesting outcomes - better outcomes than what we have with a smaller, 14-school conference.
I agree. I think the ideal number is 9-10 where you play each other team on an 8-9 game schedule but if you don't have that (and we don't), then I think 16 makes more sense than 14.
I also agree with your earlier comment that it makes no sense for North Carolina to have four P5 teams.
-
The entire original ACC was a pretty awful FB conference aside from maybe Clemson.
-
Well in what I proposed each team would have six "every-year" rivals. The oddity of it is that they aren't a group of seven because the pods and groups overlap.
Nebraska, in my proposal, would have three "geographic" every-year rivals (IA, UW, MN) and three "helmet" every-year rivals (M, PSU, tOSU).
well, if Nebraska would play Iowa, Wisconsin, Minnesoota, Michigan, Penn St., & tOSU every season for the next 20 seasons I would love it.
I would guess ESPN/ABC & the BTN would also love it.
Northwestern, Illinois, Indiana or any other conference teams could be rotated into the schedule to make up the additional 3 games.
-
And going to 10-team conferences with traditional, geographical rivalries would be the best yet.
well howdy!
and if you went to 10 conference games you could go to an 11-team conference
-
The entire original ACC was a pretty awful FB conference aside from maybe Clemson.
Yeah, Clemson had become the big, bad bully of the ACC in the 80s, and up until FSU joined the conference.
-
I'd much rather have two 8 team division that play the other 7 teams each season - adding 2 protected annual cross overs would be great, 9 games every season against a conference foe - if you never play a particular team from the other division so be it.
Going to 10 conference games would be better yet
Has your school ever gone undefeated vs its own division, lost the other games across-division, and watched someone else go to the CCG? Wait until that happens to you a few times, and then you won't be a fan of this setup.
In the SEC, out of the 6 cross-division "rivalries", only 2 were actually rivalries, and the other 4 were forced. So 4 schools held the other 8 hostage, somehow.
Anyway, it stinks when you beat everyone in your own division and don't represent them in the CCG, trust me.
-
Well in what I proposed each team would have six "every-year" rivals. The oddity of it is that they aren't a group of seven because the pods and groups overlap.
Nebraska, in my proposal, would have three "geographic" every-year rivals (IA, UW, MN) and three "helmet" every-year rivals (M, PSU, tOSU).
Is this idea sort of creating rungs or tiers within the conference? If not, correct me.
If so, I thought the goal was a uniform setup with everyone on equal footing (what we DON'T have, presently). At the start of the season, don't we want everyone to have an equal chance to earn their way into a playoff/NCG?
-
Is this idea sort of creating rungs or tiers within the conference? If not, correct me.
If so, I thought the goal was a uniform setup with everyone on equal footing (what we DON'T have, presently). At the start of the season, don't we want everyone to have an equal chance to earn their way into a playoff/NCG?
It does create tiers. Medina's proposal is for ratings purposes, to have the 4 Historical Helmets play each other. Each helmet plays the other 3 helmets every year, and all the other schools play two helmets a year. His premise is fans would rather see their team beat a bad helmet, than play a school that is performing well. It would prolly work for a while, and solves the biggest stumbling block to my Performance based Tiers. (What if OSU and UofM are not in the same performance tier.) I counter though does Alabama get excited to embarrass Tennessee year in and year out?
-
Of course it creates tiers.
The whole premise of the thread is to move away from CFB egalitarianism. Not to chase after it.
-
Of course it creates tiers.
The whole premise of the thread is to move away from CFB egalitarianism. Not to chase after it.
It is? Maybe to a degree, when it comes to the P5 separating itself from the rest, but within?
Some schools are better than others in football. Some schools are better than others in school. It's a wide spectrum. Lines can be drawn, for sure.
It would be interesting to start a new athletic association for football, through the AAU or some such.
There needs to be a governing body.
-
Yes to Governing Body. H3LL NO to AAU being it.
I feel the safest, best approach would be to blow the NCAA up and restart it. Just get rid of the 120 years of baggage most of which isn't applicable anymore, and start over.
-
I counter though does Alabama get excited to embarrass Tennessee year in and year out?
Absolutely.
Florida just had a 10-year run on Tennessee, and we were giddy over it, seeing how far it would go.
-
It is? Maybe to a degree, when it comes to the P5 separating itself from the rest, but within?
Some schools are better than others in football. Some schools are better than others in school. It's a wide spectrum. Lines can be drawn, for sure.
It would be interesting to start a new athletic association for football, through the AAU or some such.
There needs to be a governing body.
I thought the whole point of P5 vs Other 5 was to trace over the imaginary line with an actual line. And once those 2 entities were separated in real life, to set up P5 schools in a way that all are on an even playing field. Not in terms of history or money or any of that, but in terms of the number and height of the hurdles required to bypass in order to win the national championship.
A sort of socialist framework/setup in which there was no longer a beauty contest, media to influence, coaches to influence, or any of that.
4 conferences of 16 teams each in a 4x4 pod setup does this. The team with the best record in each conference enters the 4-team playoff. Or you could pair up each pod into divisions and the winners of each play a CCG, then onto the playoff. The point is, Wake Forest would have the exact same outline to a MNC as Texas.
No, Wake Forest is not on the same plane as Texas, but to give them the same opportunity - that's the difference worthy of all of this mucking about to get from where we are now to where would could get to there. If Wake Forest is going to be in the same group as Texas, USC, or Ohio St - why bother unless we remove the unnecessary obstacles they now face? Why differentiate between P5 and Other 5 and FCS and NAIA?
-
So where is the line drawn? By revenue? By name recognition?
What, and how, and most important, who is in charge?
I nominate me, but I also wrote myself in as President in 2016.
-
If Wake Forest has an easier schedule than Texas, then that gives them an easier path to the NC.
If Texas wants to annually take on a more difficult path to the NC in order to maintain some strong rivalries, then that can only help the little guy.
-
Well as a closed system - 64 schools, all within the same framework, strength-of-schedule discrepancies would dissipate over time.
No lower-tier scheduling. No one-way payout games. All OOC contracts would be equal home-and-home. That's the 'socialist' aspect of it. As is the playing everyone else in your conference every 2 years.
Teams with 5 conference road games would get 2 OOC home games. Teams with 4 conference road games only get 1 OOC home game, then vice-versa the next year. Everyone ends up with a 6/6 home/road split every year. It's easy.
-
I see problems presented. I'm looking for solutions.
-
I tied it all up into a nice bow. Fear no more. Now just implement it :)
-
16 school conferences are bubbles, and all bubbles burst eventually. Not sustainable.
-
Because......you said so?
3 annual games, 6 that alternate every other year, plus OOC games vs only the other 63 teams on your level....with an even number of home/away games for all?
Hell, you might get an SEC school up in Madison with my setup!
-
Not because I said so.
History says so.
-
You mean the sample size of one...
-
No, I mean a sample size of all bubbles.
There are bubbles in real estate, finance, investment, government, college degrees, etc. And yes, one ill-fated attempt by a conference, but that's not the point.
The point is that all bubbles burst. 16 school conferences are bubbles. 14 is already too many.
-
https://www.thoughtco.com/bubbles-that-dont-pop-recipe-603922
If you're tired of bubbles that pop as soon as you blow them, try this recipe for unbreakable bubbles! Now, it's still possible to break these bubbles, but they are much stronger than regular soap bubbles. Examples of bubbles that truly won't pop include plastic bubbles, which are essentially small balloons. This recipe makes bubbles using a sugar polymer to accomplish much the same result.
(https://fthmb.tqn.com/iaZJpPF8RXCIgWpytD9F2krVb3s=/768x0/filters:no_upscale()/468838277-56a12fff5f9b58b7d0bce386.jpg)
-
When I was in Madison I took an elective course that was in Civil Engineering and cross-listed in the Math department. Hydrodynamics.
For the final exam I had to orally develop the equations for a bubble forming in oil, and the energy within, through the bursting point. Heat was involved. Everything was recorded on the blackboard. A professor and a TA sat in.
That was a bitch. Not sure why I took that class. I left a lot of brain cells on the blackboard that day. I know I could not solve that problem today, have never needed to do so again, and never will.
But bubbles do burst. I remember that part well. Chaos ensues.
-
No, I mean a sample size of all bubbles.
There are bubbles in real estate, finance, investment, government, college degrees, etc. And yes, one ill-fated attempt by a conference, but that's not the point.
The point is that all bubbles burst. 16 school conferences are bubbles. 14 is already too many.
Again, this is just you saying so. Now many of you have come a long way, but still, you B10 lot have this need to look backward. It ain't happening. We're not going back to 10 teams.
What you call a bubble, I call the inevitable norm. Your assertion of a bubble doesn't make it so.
-
The bubble isn't 16 team conferences, the bubble is the tv deals. Without the tv deals, 16 team conferences make zero sense. If the tv money dries up, it doesn't continue to make sense for Maryland to fly it's teams to Nebraska, Iowa and Minnesota on a regular basis. That part is a fact.
-
I mentioned the TV money back on page one or two, I think, and on occasion throughout this thread.
The bubble IS 16 school "conferences" in this case. The driver today is TV, and the motivation is to get bigger as a result. It's a cause and effect.
Going to 16 will have an effect - the bubble will burst.
Contracting to a lesser number is much more sustainable for the long-term. To sacrifice long-term stability for a short-term money grab is not a good plan.
As ELA states, it makes no sense for Maryland to share a conference with Nebraska or Iowa or Wisconsin or Minnesota aside from the current TV contract. Without that, there is no affiliation. None.
Again, to hitch your wagon based on one factor - TV - is short-sighted at best, and disastrous at worst.
-
We don't know that current/past TV monies are all there will be going forward. Sure, it'll drop off big time, but college football may yet find another method of raking in the dollars to show the product. It could be something that isn't even a thing yet.
There's nothing inherently wrong with 16-team conferences. Just because you don't dig it doesn't mean it's 'bad'.
-
College Football needs a Commish.
-
We don't know that current/past TV monies are all there will be going forward. Sure, it'll drop off big time, but college football may yet find another method of raking in the dollars to show the product. It could be something that isn't even a thing yet.
There's nothing inherently wrong with 16-team conferences. Just because you don't dig it doesn't mean it's 'bad'.
I'm not saying it's bad. But it doesn't make any sense without tv paying for it. Not even the 16 team part so much, as how they went to 16 by adding tv markets, and ignoring geography. They literally made their choices 100% based on tv markets, and made choices that make no sense without those tv markets.
-
I was thinking of applying an attendance threshold as to what schools should remain as P5 representatives.
What would be a good number? Start at 50K and go from there? There are some P5 schools with stadiums that offer less capacity than that. 45K maybe?
Much of the SEC and B1G are safe in that zone. The ACC and PAC could be in trouble - particularly the former.
-
Is this idea sort of creating rungs or tiers within the conference? If not, correct me.
If so, I thought the goal was a uniform setup with everyone on equal footing (what we DON'T have, presently). At the start of the season, don't we want everyone to have an equal chance to earn their way into a playoff/NCG?
Sort-of, but not exactly. To review (and for anyone else reading who doesn't want to have to flip back multiple pages), my proposal is to have overlapping pods and groups with two pods combining to form a temporary division. The Pods/Groups are:
Pod/Group Group1 Group2 Group3 Group4
North Pod Mich MSU PU NU
East Pod PSU UMD UVA UNC
West Pod UNL Iowa Wisc Minny
South Pod tOSU RU IU IL
I'm assuming a nine-game annual schedule so each team will play:
- Their three pod-mates every year, and
- Their three group-mates every year, and
- The other three teams in one of the other three pods each year (on a rotating basis).
It does create "tiers" in the sense that Michigan has to play PSU, UNL, and tOSU every year while MSU gets UMD, Iowa, and Rutgers instead. To an extent, that would currently be an advantage for MSU because the Nittany Lions, Cornhuskers, and Buckeyes are usually somewhat better than the Terps, Hawkeyes, and Scarlet Knights. However, the temporary divisional structure would partially alleviate this:
- In the years when the North and East Pods are combined to form a Northeast Division MSU would have to play PSU and Michigan would get to play Maryland. Michigan would still have to play UNL and tOSU while MSU got IA and RU but, at least last year, Iowa was so much better than Nebraska that it pretty much made up for the tOSU/RU difference.
- In the years when the North and West Pods are combined to form a Northwest Divison MSU would have to play UNL and Michigan would have to play Iowa. At present this would be the toughest for Michigan vis-a-vis MSU because Michigan's "other" two games would be PSU/tOSU while MSU's would be UMD/RU.
- In the years when the North and South Pods are combined to form a Northsouth Division MSU would have to play tOSU and Michigan would get to play Rutgers. This would be similar to #1 in that Iowa being better than UNL could make up for tOSU being better than RU.
@TyphonInc (https://www.cfb51.com/index.php?action=profile;u=8) is right (see my next post) in that my proposal is mostly for ratings purposes. That isn't so much because I think it is what the conference "should" do as it is because I assume that it is what the conference "will" do.
-
It does create tiers. Medina's proposal is for ratings purposes, to have the 4 Historical Helmets play each other. Each helmet plays the other 3 helmets every year, and all the other schools play two helmets a year. His premise is fans would rather see their team beat a bad helmet, than play a school that is performing well. It would prolly work for a while, and solves the biggest stumbling block to my Performance based Tiers. (What if OSU and UofM are not in the same performance tier.) I counter though does Alabama get excited to embarrass Tennessee year in and year out?
Yes, a BIG part of the logic behind my proposal is to have the four historical helmets play each other every year. These six games are ratings bonanzas:
- Ohio State vs Michigan
- Ohio State vs Penn State
- Ohio State vs Nebraska
- Michigan vs Penn State
- Michigan vs Nebraska
- Penn State vs Nebraska.
I know and respect you so I assume this was unintentional, but you slightly misquoted me. You said that my premise was that "fans would rather see their team beat a bad helmet, than play a school that is performing well." What I actually said was that a hypothetical Minnesota fan "would MUCH rather watch their team beat a bad Michigan team than a bad Purdue team." I think this is true for Ohio State fans as well. I really enjoyed watching the Buckeyes beat up RRod's horrible 3-9 team in 2008. I enjoyed it a lot more than I enjoyed watching that same Ohio State team beat 4-8 Purdue and 5-7 Illinois. Purdue and Illinois were theoretically better teams but within a range of a few games it doesn't make much difference. Within that range I'd much rather beat the bad team with the big helmet than any other bad team. I assume that most fans, whether or not their own team is a "helmet" would generally agree.
To your final question as to whether or not Bama fans get excited to embarrass Tennessee year in and year out, I agree with @OrangeAfroMan (https://www.cfb51.com/index.php?action=profile;u=58) . He loved Florida's 10 year run on Tennessee and I'd love every minute of every game if Ohio State had a 20 year run on Michigan.
In the long-run I think you are right. If Michigan permanently tanked then I think that eventually younger Ohio State fans would wonder why we played "crappy Michigan" instead of "Helmet MSU" every year. However, I think that "long-run" is REALLY long. It is also highly dependent of the age of the fans in question. Fans like you and me who lived through Cooper's 2-10-1 against The Team Up North will probably never live long enough to get bored with beating the crap out of bad Michigan teams every year. Younger fans would, understandably, view the situation differently.
I imagine that it is the same for the Bama fans that you asked about. My best guess is that 18 year old Bama freshmen who were six the last time Tennessee beat Bama and in diapers the last time Tennessee won in Tuscaloosa probably wonder why on earth their mighty Tide are saddled with "crappy Tennessee" for a rival. Bama fans your age and mine, on the other hand, remember Tennessee's seven-game winning streak over the Tide from 1995-2001 and Tennessee winning nine of 10 from 1995-2004. Those older fans, like us, will probably never live long enough to get bored with beating the crap out of bad Tennessee teams every year.
-
On this bubble question, I am with @OrangeAfroMan (https://www.cfb51.com/index.php?action=profile;u=58) . In my opinion the bubble is the TV money. Conference size is related but not the same thing.
I understand the point that if the TV money dries up it really doesn't make sense for Maryland to fly their football team to Iowa/Nebraska/Minnesota/Wisconsin. However, there is a humongous amount of TV money so we need to think here about the definition of "dries up". The TV contract could be cut in half or down to less than 30% and it would still be a LOT of money and still enough to easily justify paying for those flights.
As long as there are fans, there will be some way of monetizing their interest in the games. It might cease to be advertising and cable subscription fees but the money will still be there for some time to come.
The other thing is that the Pod system alleviates this issue considerably. In my proposal Maryland's every-year rivals would be:
- Penn State (200 mi (https://www.google.com/maps/dir/Capital+One+Field+at+Maryland+Stadium,+90+Stadium+Dr,+College+Park,+MD+20742/Penn+State+University,+Stadium+West+-+Intramural+Fields,+State+College,+PA/@39.9072255,-78.7024619,8z/data=!3m1!4b1!4m14!4m13!1m5!1m1!1s0x89b7c69a26d39845:0xe5eeb773be02ce67!2m2!1d-76.9473792!2d38.9903332!1m5!1m1!1s0x89cea617f31e6a7d:0xa382fe0d8848cc3!2m2!1d-77.8585244!2d40.8093964!3e0?hl=en))
- Virginia (135 mi (https://www.google.com/maps/dir/Capital+One+Field+at+Maryland+Stadium,+90+Stadium+Dr,+College+Park,+MD+20742/Scott+Stadium,+Stadium+Road,+Charlottesville,+VA/@38.513337,-78.2721379,9z/data=!3m1!4b1!4m14!4m13!1m5!1m1!1s0x89b7c69a26d39845:0xe5eeb773be02ce67!2m2!1d-76.9473792!2d38.9903332!1m5!1m1!1s0x89b3865c0c8b70f3:0x6701b6e66df09696!2m2!1d-78.5136879!2d38.0311032!3e0?hl=en))
- North Carolina (293 mi (https://www.google.com/maps/dir/Capital+One+Field+at+Maryland+Stadium,+90+Stadium+Dr,+College+Park,+MD+20742/University+of+North+Carolina+at+Chapel+Hill,+Stadium+Drive,+Chapel+Hill,+NC/@37.450828,-79.0674021,8z/data=!3m1!4b1!4m14!4m13!1m5!1m1!1s0x89b7c69a26d39845:0xe5eeb773be02ce67!2m2!1d-76.9473792!2d38.9903332!1m5!1m1!1s0x89acc2ebf42b1d33:0x4e4cff44a4fb190a!2m2!1d-79.0469305!2d35.9082057!3e0?hl=en))
- Rutgers (193 mi (https://www.google.com/maps/dir/Capital+One+Field+at+Maryland+Stadium,+90+Stadium+Dr,+College+Park,+MD+20742/Rutgers+Stadium,+Scarlet+Knight+Way,+Piscataway+Township,+NJ/@39.728891,-76.2374017,9z/data=!3m1!4b1!4m14!4m13!1m5!1m1!1s0x89b7c69a26d39845:0xe5eeb773be02ce67!2m2!1d-76.9473792!2d38.9903332!1m5!1m1!1s0x89c3c704fb45ad4d:0x73ddb4af078b9fd1!2m2!1d-74.4652984!2d40.5135608!3e0?hl=en))
- Michigan State (590 mi)
- Iowa (912 mi)
Of those, only Iowa is really far and the first four are all easy drives. Every year four of their nine B1G games would be within easy driving distance. If you look at the whole chart for my proposal most teams would have four every year opponents within easy driving distance.
-
As long as there are fans, there will be some way of monetizing their interest in the games. It might cease to be advertising and cable subscription fees but the money will still be there for some time to come.
This. Entities that haven't even been invented yet will occur between now and college football viewing monies "dry up", to be sure.
Instead of conference channels or Longhorn Network, they may one day be the NCAA football channel group - and even if it costs a lot or a little, all of us and our brethren will gladly pay up.
-
medina, I guess your pod/groups idea seems like a caste system to me. If it were implemented in 1950, Minnesota would be a top tier team. If it was implemented in the 80s, Oregon would be way down the group list in the PAC.
We all know helmet status is slow to change, but it does change. And if you have a long-term relegation system like top soccer leagues, I just don't think college football people would sign off on that. Right or wrong, too many would just not like it, imo.
-
For my idea, I'm with those who want to go back to 10-team conferences, but I also know it isn't going backward. 16 teams is 2 groups of 8, so in effect, if the conferences agreed to pair off pods, each of them would look like pairs of 8-team conferences under one umbrella.
As for only having 3 annual opponents, who looks forward to more than that each season? For Florida, I know we look forward to Tennessee, Georgia, and FSU. FSU is OOC, so if you had to replaced them, I guess it'd be LSU. If Gators fans were told we'd only play UTK, UGA, and LSU every year, and everyone else every other year, we'd be really okay with that. No, most won't end up with 3 sexy teams like that - acutally no one would. Probably 2 at the most. But still - it would be orchestrated in a way in which no one is stuck with 3 duds to play every year.
But back to the caste system - that's pretty much the polar opposite of what I'm advocating for. If the P5 is comprised of 64 teams or 66 or 80, I don't care, I just want them all to have an equal shot at the national championship. That means if they win their pod/division/conference, they're in the playoff. With how it is today, everything is so out of balance, I'm not an advocate for such things. But if conferences and scheduling and formatting is all uniform, I'm all for it.
Any team winning its 16-team conference would have earned it, 100% of the time. Once they earn their way into a playoff, from there, they'd earn whatever they win. Whether its Oregon State or Oklahoma or Ole Miss or Maryland or Iowa - there would be no more "paper" 12-0 teams.....no more backing into a playoff or NCG.
I think the idea most would be against (especially helmet team peoples) is the equal 6/6 home/away games for EVERYONE, every year. That would cut out some of the advantages helmets have now - 8-9 home games means major dollars. Nuh uh. 6/6 for everyone, every year.
-
This. Entities that haven't even been invented yet will occur between now and college football viewing monies "dry up", to be sure.
Instead of conference channels or Longhorn Network, they may one day be the NCAA football channel group - and even if it costs a lot or a little, all of us and our brethren will gladly pay up.
But unless that money is negotiated on a conference basis, why would Maryland have to fly to Nebraska or Minnesota, or why would West Virginia have to navigate Texas recruiting, to get it?
-
But unless that money is negotiated on a conference basis, why would Maryland have to fly to Nebraska or Minnesota, or why would West Virginia have to navigate Texas recruiting, to get it?
Well for one reason (and also somewhat to play devil's advocate), the conference serves more than one function. It isn't just a negotiating conglomerate, it also effectively serves as an insurance collective.
In a theoretical world in which an individual team could easily monetize their fan interest and schedule games without help from a conference, Ohio State would be better off independent from the B1G provided that Ohio State continues to perform at a high level. Part of the reason that Ohio State would be highly unlikely to consider that split is that the revenue of the other 13 members is a kind of "insurance" for Ohio State. If Ohio State goes into a major decline and fans lose interest the AD can still count on getting Ohio State's 1/14 share of B1G revenues.
-
But unless that money is negotiated on a conference basis, why would Maryland have to fly to Nebraska or Minnesota, or why would West Virginia have to navigate Texas recruiting, to get it?
Maybe it would be on a conference-by-conference basis. The SEC on CBS, the B10 on Fox, etc. That would work.
If it was these big, fat 4 conferences together, well Maryland would benefit from being in the same, big money-earning lump USC is part of and Texas is part of and Minnesota is part of. The cost of flying out there would be more than made up.
Maybe I don't understand what you're getting at.
-
Sorry Medina, brain fart on my part, did not mean to offend/slight. (I did read it as bad Helmet worth more than, current quality opponent; which is part of my pod proposal.)
My question about the Bama/Tennessee game was about non-Bama/Tennessee fans, does anyone outside of those fan bases care about it? I don't.
Do non-OSU/M*ch fans care about the annual beat down that has been administered? We do because OSU is our team. M*ch does because they want it to stop. Does OAM care if CFP implications are not involved?
-
Not at all. In fact, UTK-Bama is one of the games that held the rest of the SEC hostage and made cross-division rivals a thing. UGA-Auburn is the other. So the rest of the conference gets paired off, nearly at random.
OSU-Michigan is often a big game, and I'll watch it because it's on TV. But I don't make a point to watch it. It beats UNC vs NC State or Oregon-Oregon State. But it's not appointment watching, unless both are highly ranked.
So that's part of why I want to minimize these rivalry games invading other schools' schedules, in the pod format. You get 3 schools you play every year, and 3 only. You want that big, sexy rival? Great. You have 2 more choices.
-
with (4) 16-team groups, really (8) 8-team regional conferences
if you simply take the large group of 64 teams, share the TV revenue equally, there's no need for negotiating different groups content with different media outlets
heck, simply auction each matchup (game)
Ohio St v Bama might be worth the most
Kansas v Oregon St. might be worth the least
-
Inside the Big Ten's $1.7 billion sports empire; Ohio State, Michigan, Penn State, others ranked for revenue, spending, more
http://www.cleveland.com/expo/erry-2018/03/a9ad5f0d13/big_tens_16_billion_sports_emp.html (http://www.cleveland.com/expo/erry-2018/03/a9ad5f0d13/big_tens_16_billion_sports_emp.html)
-
with (4) 16-team groups, really (8) 8-team regional conferences
if you simply take the large group of 64 teams, share the TV revenue equally, there's no need for negotiating different groups content with different media outlets
heck, simply auction each matchup (game)
Ohio St v Bama might be worth the most
Kansas v Oregon St. might be worth the least
That's how I see it - NCAA football is a big, fat, tasty thing with a verrry devout consumer base. I'd pay far more than I should in order to be able to watch college football, if it was itself a separate entity....as would huge swaths of people across the country.
Imagine college football as a premium channel like HBO - $16/month, even prorated from Aug-Jan, we'd all do it.
-
I would pay more too, but college football wonks can only dream that every fan is a CFB nutjob like we all are.
-
I would pay more too, but college football wonks can only dream that every fan is a CFB nutjob like we all are.
Yes, and this is why there are still plenty of games that you don't need to subscribe to anything (not even basic cable) to watch.
The money that CFB makes from fanatics like us pales in comparison to the advertising money they make from highly rated games. They have to keep that money rolling in at the same time.
-
Inside the Big Ten's $1.7 billion sports empire; Ohio State, Michigan, Penn State, others ranked for revenue, spending, more
http://www.cleveland.com/expo/erry-2018/03/a9ad5f0d13/big_tens_16_billion_sports_emp.html (http://www.cleveland.com/expo/erry-2018/03/a9ad5f0d13/big_tens_16_billion_sports_emp.html)
Interesting, thank you for sharing.
-
medina, I guess your pod/groups idea seems like a caste system to me. If it were implemented in 1950, Minnesota would be a top tier team. If it was implemented in the 80s, Oregon would be way down the group list in the PAC.
We all know helmet status is slow to change, but it does change. And if you have a long-term relegation system like top soccer leagues, I just don't think college football people would sign off on that. Right or wrong, too many would just not like it, imo.
There is something that seems odd or perhaps misleading about calling my proposal a "caste system". When I think of a caste system, I think of something that is set up to help the members of the higher caste and keep the members of the lower caste down. My proposal, to the extent that it helps/hurts (which I think isn't very much overall), helps the members of the lower caste and hurts the members of the higher caste.
Consider an example:
Think of a season in which Michigan and MSU both have good but not great teams that are about equal overall while the North and East Pods are combined to form a Northeast Division.
Both the Spartans and Wolverines will have to play:
- Each other
- Purdue
- Northwestern
- Penn State
- Maryland
- Virginia
- North Carolina
The difference is that Michigan's other two opponents will be:
Michigan State's other two opponents will be:
In their four years in the conference Rutgers has never finished less than five games behind Ohio State so the Spartans get a humongous advantage in playing a team that has finished 3-5, 1-7, 0-9, and 3-6 rather than a team that has finished 8-0, 7-1, 8-1, and 8-1 in those same four years.
Nebraska/Iowa is closer. Their records the last four years:
- 2014: Iowa 4-4, Nebraska 5-3
- 2015: Iowa 8-0, Nebraska 3-5
- 2016: Iowa 6-3, Nebraska 6-3
- 2017: Iowa 4-5, Nebraska 3-6
Over the last four years Iowa/Nebraska have been comparable (within one game) every year save 2015 when Iowa was substantially better. Thus, over the last four years Michigan State's hypothetical SoS in my proposal (and with NE/SW Divisions) would have been easier than Michigan's every year save 2015 when Iowa being much better than Nebraska would have made up for Ohio State being much better than Rutgers. Even in 2015 though, this wouldn't have been an advantage for Michigan, it would simply have put M/MSU on an even footing.
With all of that said, I really don't think it is all that big of a difference and I think it is MUCH less of a difference than we have now:
In the current B1G structure we play our six divisional opponents and three opponents from the other division. Fully one-third of a team's conference games each year can be different as compared to a divisional rival.
Upthread you, @OrangeAfroMan (https://www.cfb51.com/index.php?action=profile;u=58) mentioned a situation in which your team beat all of your divisional rivals and yet still failed to get to the CG. The more non-divisional games you have the more likely this is. In the current B1G structure it isn't very unlikely. If, for example, Wisconsin goes 6-0 against the B1G-W but goes 0-3 against the three best teams in the B1G-E they finish 6-3. A B1G-W team that goes 4-2 in the division and 3-0 against the worst three teams in the B1G-E would head to the B1GCG ahead of them.
It is still possible, of course, with two non-divisional games. It is possible anytime you have more than one, but the less you have or the smaller fraction of the schedule that they make up the less likely it becomes.
Putting this all into your example:
Over the past four years, if Michigan had gone 7-0 in my hypothetical B1G-NE, in each year MSU would only have surpassed them for the B1GCG if:
2014:
- Michigan lost to 8-0 tOSU, and
- Michigan lost to 5-3 Nebraska, and
- Michigan State went 6-0 against the other B1G-NE teams, and
- Michigan State beat 4-4 Iowa, and
- Michigan State beat 3-5 Rutgers
2015:
- Michigan lost to 7-1 tOSU, and
- Michigan lost to 3-5 Nebraska, and
- Michigan State went 6-0 against the other B1G-NE teams, and
- Michigan State beat 8-0 Iowa, and
- Michigan State beat 1-7 Rutgers
2016:
- Michigan lost to 8-1 tOSU, and
- Michigan lost to 6-3 Nebraska, and
- Michigan State went 6-0 against the other B1G-NE teams, and
- Michigan State beat 6-3 Iowa, and
- Michigan State beat 0-9 Rutgers
2017:
- Michigan lost to 8-1 tOSU, and
- Michigan lost to 3-6 Nebraska, and
- Michigan State went 6-0 against the other B1G-NE teams, and
- Michigan State beat 4-5 Iowa, and
- Michigan State beat 3-6 Rutgers
If MSU had accomplished all of that in any of those years I would have felt that they earned their place in the B1GCG. Even though they would have gotten into the B1GCG despite a loss to Michigan in any of those situations I wouldn't see it as egregiously unfair. If a Michigan fan were complaining about it I would say:
2014: Your team lost to a 5-3 team.
2015: Your team lost to a 3-5 team.
2016: Your team lost to a 6-3 team.
2017: Your team lost to a 3-6 team.
-
Sorry Medina, brain fart on my part, did not mean to offend/slight. (I did read it as bad Helmet worth more than, current quality opponent; which is part of my pod proposal.)
My question about the Bama/Tennessee game was about non-Bama/Tennessee fans, does anyone outside of those fan bases care about it? I don't.
Do non-OSU/M*ch fans care about the annual beat down that has been administered? We do because OSU is our team. M*ch does because they want it to stop. Does OAM care if CFP implications are not involved?
I don't think that @OrangeAfroMan (https://www.cfb51.com/index.php?action=profile;u=58) is the appropriate "control group" here. He is a fanatic like us. If Michigan isn't any good, he'll know it because he follows the sport. I think the more important question is the marginal fan. Ie, the guy who watches sometimes as opposed to a guy who is on a CFB message board for somebody else's conference in the dead of the off-season.
IMHO, to that "marginal fan", when they hear "Ohio State vs Michigan" they think "Woody and Bo", "Ten Year War", BigTen and Rose Bowl implications, etc. In any given year, Ohio State vs Purdue might actually be a bigger and more important game but I'm not convinced that the marginal fan knows or cares. They just hear "Ohio State vs Purdue" and figure they'll rake the leaves this weekend because they don't need to watch the Buckeyes beat the crap out of Purdue. In a particular year when Purdue is a better team you and I and OAM will know that and we'll be excited about Ohio State vs Purdue but I'm not convinced that the marginal fan will.
-
I don't think that @OrangeAfroMan (https://www.cfb51.com/index.php?action=profile;u=58) is the appropriate "control group" here. He is a fanatic like us. If Michigan isn't any good, he'll know it because he follows the sport. I think the more important question is the marginal fan. Ie, the guy who watches sometimes as opposed to a guy who is on a CFB message board for somebody else's conference in the dead of the off-season.
IMHO, to that "marginal fan", when they hear "Ohio State vs Michigan" they think "Woody and Bo", "Ten Year War", BigTen and Rose Bowl implications, etc. In any given year, Ohio State vs Purdue might actually be a bigger and more important game but I'm not convinced that the marginal fan knows or cares. They just hear "Ohio State vs Purdue" and figure they'll rake the leaves this weekend because they don't need to watch the Buckeyes beat the crap out of Purdue. In a particular year when Purdue is a better team you and I and OAM will know that and we'll be excited about Ohio State vs Purdue but I'm not convinced that the marginal fan will.
FWIW: I do think that this can change. I disagreed with @Anonymous Coward (https://www.cfb51.com/index.php?action=profile;u=1513) 's assertion that the tiers became permanently fixed decades ago in another thread. It was pointed out upthread that if the "tiers" had been established in 1940* Minnesota would have been a top-tier team. I agree that the tiers can change over time, but my position is that it takes a REALLY long time for that to happen.
Moreover, I think that it takes much longer for those "marginal fans" that matter for ratings than it does for fanatics like us. Michigan State/Wisconsin might surpass Michigan/Nebraska and people on this board will see it happening and know about it immediately. Marginal fans who only watch once in a while will not be so up-to-date. Thus, I wouldn't be opposed to reconsidering those tiers at some point in the future but I would argue that it should be WAY in the future. Basically, I wouldn't change it until it had become so permanent and well known that even marginal fans started to think of MSU/UW as being better and "more helmety" than Michigan/Nebraska. I wouldn't change it every six years.
*The statement upthread was actually that Minnesota would have been top-tier in 1950 but I corrected it to 1940. Minnesota won Conference and National Championships in 1940 and 1941. Since then they have won one NC (1960 and that is a pretty weak claim with losses to a mediocre Purdue team and in the RoseBowl) and two conference titles (1960 and 1967, both shared). By 1950 Minnesota was already in decline but my guess is that they still had "cache" for some time after that.
-
Back to thinking about the topic of going to 16...
Nothing out East moves any meter for me. None.
Out West, only some combination of Texas, Oklahoma, Missouri and Kansas does anything for me, and only a little bit. Texas and OU would be a big splash, much more so than the other two.
Any additions, in my opinion, will only further water down the conference from where it already has been.
Keep in mind that I'm a nut job fanatic like the rest of you. I'm not sure what my neighbor would think, other than maybe a sigh.
-
Back to thinking about the topic of going to 16...
Nothing out East moves any meter for me. None.
Out West, only some combination of Texas, Oklahoma, Missouri and Kansas does anything for me, and only a little bit. Texas and OU would be a big splash, much more so than the other two.
Without looking anything up (other than popn figures), just off the top of my head:
Mizzou:
Would bring decent football and BB and a state with 6.1M people.
Kansas:
Would bring great BB, terrible football, and a state with 2.9M people.
Oklahoma:
Would bring great football, decent BB, and a state with 3.9M people.
Texas:
Would bring great football, decent BB, and a state with 28.3M people.
In the East:
Virginia:
Would bring great BB, maybe ok football, and a state with 8.5M people.
North Carolina:
Would bring great BB, decent football, and a state with 10.3M people.
VaTech:
Would bring solid football and BB and a state with 8.5M people.
-
Imagine college football as a premium channel like HBO - $16/month, even prorated from Aug-Jan, we'd all do it.
hah, think more like $160/month, 12 months a year
at $1/month to all the little old ladies in the states of New Jersey and New York paying for basic cable with the BTN is much more than all the fanatics paying $100/month
When/if the FCC brings out ala carte programming - us crazy fanatics are going to pay DEARLY for our CFB content
probably just go to purchasing individual games, such as PPV. Your option on delivery method, IPTV, CATV, streaming. $50/game, maybe $100/game for the big matchups.
-
FWIW: I do think that this can change. I disagreed with @Anonymous Coward (https://www.cfb51.com/index.php?action=profile;u=1513) 's assertion that the tiers became permanently fixed decades ago in another thread. It was pointed out upthread that if the "tiers" had been established in 1940* Minnesota would have been a top-tier team. I agree that the tiers can change over time, but my position is that it takes a REALLY long time for that to happen.
Moreover, I think that it takes much longer for those "marginal fans" that matter for ratings than it does for fanatics like us. Michigan State/Wisconsin might surpass Michigan/Nebraska and people on this board will see it happening and know about it immediately. Marginal fans who only watch once in a while will not be so up-to-date. Thus, I wouldn't be opposed to reconsidering those tiers at some point in the future but I would argue that it should be WAY in the future. Basically, I wouldn't change it until it had become so permanent and well known that even marginal fans started to think of MSU/UW as being better and "more helmety" than Michigan/Nebraska. I wouldn't change it every six years.
*The statement upthread was actually that Minnesota would have been top-tier in 1950 but I corrected it to 1940. Minnesota won Conference and National Championships in 1940 and 1941. Since then they have won one NC (1960 and that is a pretty weak claim with losses to a mediocre Purdue team and in the RoseBowl) and two conference titles (1960 and 1967, both shared). By 1950 Minnesota was already in decline but my guess is that they still had "cache" for some time after that.
Since the observation I was making completely addresses Minnesota's absence, your rephrasing is an incomplete summary. It isn't that the tiers became locked beginning some unknown "decades ago" but that they specifically became locked sometime after 1970. I've always acknowledged that it's *possible* that this "locked tiers" claim won't be demonstrated forever. My main emphasis is that, since 1970, this has consistently been our only finding. The helmets in the 70s and 80s have perfectly carried over to become the helmets today -- not one has fallen out.
-
Some helmets are fading. Some are thriving. Some faded and came back to thriving.
-
hah, think more like $160/month, 12 months a year
at $1/month to all the little old ladies in the states of New Jersey and New York paying for basic cable with the BTN is much more than all the fanatics paying $100/month
When/if the FCC brings out ala carte programming - us crazy fanatics are going to pay DEARLY for our CFB content
probably just go to purchasing individual games, such as PPV. Your option on delivery method, IPTV, CATV, streaming. $50/game, maybe $100/game for the big matchups.
I don't think it will ever work like that. The biggest games create more revenue when more people watch. Ie, the advertising revenue for an audience of millions is more than the PPV revenue for a smaller audience. I almost always watch the NC, but I wouldn't pay $100 to watch it unless Ohio State was in it.
I think where they will get us for PPV is for smaller games that only us fanatics care about. Ie, when Nebraska plays some MAC school they might be able to charge you money to watch it because they can't get a huge audience even if it is free.
-
Since the observation I was making completely addresses Minnesota's absence, your rephrasing is an incomplete summary. It isn't that the tiers became locked beginning some unknown "decades ago" but that they specifically became locked sometime after 1970. I've always acknowledged that it's *possible* that this "locked tiers" claim won't be demonstrated forever. My main emphasis is that, since 1970, this has consistently been our only finding. The helmets in the 70s and 80s have perfectly carried over to become the helmets today -- not one has fallen out.
I didn't mean to misrepresent what you said. I couldn't remember your exact timeframe so I just said "decades" because I thought that the accuracy made up for the lack of specificity.
Even there, I still do not agree. First, I noticed that you phrased it specifically as being inclusionary rather than exclusionary. Ie, you stated that no helmets have fallen out since 1970. I would note, however, that Florida, Miami, and Florida State have all, at least arguably, joined the group since that time.
As far as falling out, like I said upthread and in our previous discussions of this, I do think that it takes a REALLY long time. I also believe that helmet status is much easier to maintain than it is to attain. Thus, Michigan doesn't need to win NC's to maintain helmet status but Wisconsin does need to win NC's to attain helmet status. That said, I still maintain that nothing is permanent and that current "helmets" can and will fall out of that group.
Since winning back-to-back Conference and National titles with back-to-back undefeated seasons in 1940 and 1941 Minnesota has won only one NC (1960 and it is a very weak claim) and only two conference titles (1960 and 1967, both shared). That is one NC and two conference titles in 76 years (1942-2017).
Nebraska's last NC was in 1997 and their last conference title was in 1999 (B12). If the Cornhuskers only win one NC and two conference titles in the 76 years from 1997-2072 they will clearly no longer be a helmet as of 2072.
Michigan's last NC was in 1997 and since then (inclusive) they have won five conference titles (97, 98, 00, 03, 04). If the Wolverines only win one NC and five conference titles in the 76 years from 1997-2072 they will clearly no longer be a helmet as of 2072.
Ohio State's last NC was in 2014 and since then (inclusive) they have won two conference titles (14, 17). If the Buckeyes only win one NC and two conference titles in the 76 years from 2014-2089 they will clearly no longer be a helmet as of 2089.
-
Some helmets are fading. Some are thriving. Some faded and came back to thriving.
But they are still helmets. Oklahoma, then Notre Dame, then USC, then Nebraska, then Michigan, then Texas, never stopped being helmets while they struggled. They kept being relevant, they kept recruiting above the level of their on field success, and they keep looking attractive to desired coaches, whether or not the coaches were fits.
-
I accept that "a helmet falling out" is theoretically possible and could take a loooong time. I also accept that the "they just took a prescribed time to fall out" theory can explain what happened to Minnesota/U-Chicago et al.
However, that theory does not explain why many helmets were lost in the 5 decades before 1970 but zero helmets have been lost in the 5 decades since 1970. That implies a phase change. So I think whatever our best model is, it must account for this phase change.
ONE such model employs an analogy I've written before. That 4-5 billion years ago, there must have been additional planetary bodies (beyond the current 8) that were either catapulted from our solar system or tugged into the sun. And now we exist in an era where even slooooow exit from the solar system is exceedingly improbable. That's a phase change.
I'd be happy to explore other types of phase change. This one is absolute (dropping out was possible and then it became impossible). Others don't have to be (dropping out was fast, and then it became slow). But even those models will claim that what happened to Minnesota, U-Chicago, Army, Yale and so many others is irrelevant to the modern versions of ND/Michigan/OSU/Alabama/Texas et al.
-
I accept that "a helmet falling out" is theoretically possible and could take a loooong time. I also accept that the "they just took a prescribed time to fall out" theory can explain what happened to Minnesota/U-Chicago et al.
However, that theory does not explain why many helmets were lost in the 5 decades before 1970 but zero helmets have been lost in the 5 decades since 1970. That implies a phase change. So I think whatever our best model is, it must account for this phase change.
I'll accept the "phase change theory" and submit some possible reasons for the change:
- The first reason is an obvious one but one that might be overlooked if not stated. Over time starting from the beginning of cfb the "helmets" inherently tend to become more entrenched simply because they have more history of being "helmets". If a team, lets say Yale, was the hands down indisputable best team in CFB for the first 10 years of the game (1869-1878) that could have been easily overcome by a team being the hands down indisputable best team for 15 years from 1879-1893 but each time this recurs it takes longer.
- Television, and then the advent of cable and the lawsuit that ended the limitation of the televising of games: If we think of a pre-TV era it was difficult, for example, for a Minnesota alum to keep up with Minnesota football unless they lived reasonably close to Minneapolis. They could get a box score from the newspaper or perhaps listen to a game on the radio but they couldn't see a game without travelling back to Minneapolis. Due to NCAA limitations on televised games this restriction lasted into the 1980's and even after the NCAA lost at SCOTUS (1984) it still took a little while for the change to take effect. Today a Michigan fan can keep up with their team (due to the internet) and can probably watch all of their games regardless of where they live. This allowed fanbases to nationalize more readily. The teams that had the largest fanbases in 1984 were generally the same "helmets" from 1970 and all of them grew national fanbases that will take decades to fully erode.
Above, @ELA (https://www.cfb51.com/index.php?action=profile;u=55) pointed out that despite fading, all the helmets are still helmets. I think there are two issues. One is that we have to define "fading". I said earlier that helmet status is easier to maintain than it is to attain. All a team really needs to do to maintain helmet status, IMHO, is to be a serious contender once in a while. They don't actually have to win NC's or even necessarily conference titles, they simply need to be close enough to the running to rejuvenate the fanbase and keep their brand in the news. Failing to win an NC for ~50 years doesn't knock a team out of being a helmet so long as they periodically contend for NC's (see Michigan, 1948-1996).
-
Inside the Big Ten's $1.7 billion sports empire; Ohio State, Michigan, Penn State, others ranked for revenue, spending, more
http://www.cleveland.com/expo/erry-2018/03/a9ad5f0d13/big_tens_16_billion_sports_emp.html (http://www.cleveland.com/expo/erry-2018/03/a9ad5f0d13/big_tens_16_billion_sports_emp.html)
I love these numbers. Just reinforces The OSU and UM are the big dogs (both at 185 Million.) Not sure what I found more surprising that Wisconsin was 4th nipping on PSU's heels (143 and 144 million respectively.) Or Nebraska so low (7th at 120 Million) With Minnesota nipping at their heels (116 million.)
-
I don't think it will ever work like that. The biggest games create more revenue when more people watch. Ie, the advertising revenue for an audience of millions is more than the PPV revenue for a smaller audience. I almost always watch the NC, but I wouldn't pay $100 to watch it unless Ohio State was in it.
I think where they will get us for PPV is for smaller games that only us fanatics care about. Ie, when Nebraska plays some MAC school they might be able to charge you money to watch it because they can't get a huge audience even if it is free.
I agree. And understand this is why the content providers (networks) don't want to give up control.
-
I love these numbers. Just reinforces The OSU and UM are the big dogs (both at 185 Million.) Not sure what I found more surprising that Wisconsin was 4th nipping on PSU's heels (143 and 144 million respectively.) Or Nebraska so low (7th at 120 Million) With Minnesota nipping at their heels (116 million.)
I assume Nebraska will make a substantial jump. This will be the first year with a full Big Ten Network share.
-
Medina:
(I think) I'm down with truly all of that.
Something I think is interesting: we often say that Minnesota was once a fully entrenched helmet and after "a long time" they lost it. But "a long time" doesn't really mean anything without a point of comparison. Absent cataclysm, the length of time it took for a school like Minnesota to lose its status is a flash in the pan compared to what it'll take for a modern helmet to lose its status now.
-
This surprises me..............
Subsidy from school or student fees:
Rutgers $33,087,478
Minnesota $14,817,134
Maryland $14,473,659
Illinois $3,281,700
Wisconsin $2,843,000
Indiana $2,569,044
Michigan St. $901,057
Iowa $650,000
Michigan $280,647
Purdue, Nebraska, Penn St., & Ohio St. $0
noted that Michigan gave much more than their amount back - so why take it?
-
I was thinking of applying an attendance threshold as to what schools should remain as P5 representatives.
What would be a good number? Start at 50K and go from there? There are some P5 schools with stadiums that offer less capacity than that. 45K maybe?
Much of the SEC and B1G are safe in that zone. The ACC and PAC could be in trouble - particularly the former.
There is a current one, but it's not enforced. 30k Stadium, and 17k average attendence.
If you place it at 50k then you lose from the B1G:
Illinois: 45,644 (75 percent)
Rutgers: 44,804 (85 percent)
Minnesota: 43,814 (83 percent)
Indiana: 43,027 (82 percent)
Maryland: 39,615 (76 percent)
Northwestern: 34,798 (74 percent)
Purdue: 34,798 (60 percent)
-
I do think that attendance is not a perfect measure though.
Rutgers had OSU show up last year.
Minnie had UNL and UW show up last year.
NU had Iowa and PSU show up last year.
Those home games turn into big numbers for the "home" team. I've seen what OSU fans can do to Indiana games. I've seen what Wisconsin fans can do to NU games.
-
I cited it being a caste system because you'd be telling each program where it is on the totem pole and relegating them to that level indefinitely.
Okay, Iowa, you're not a helmet, so you don't get all these extra, sexy games against helmet teams for the next 2 decades, sorry. And without all of those opportunities, you won't have nearly as many big wins vs helmets as you might have, given an equal schedule as the sexy helmet programs get. Even if you become great, you'll fatten up on lesser programs year after year and only get to play big-boy teams occasionally.
Sorry!!!
It's just such a stark contrast to what I'm aiming for - the least possible amount of differentiation in terms of things out of each school's control. We have conferences of varying size - let's get them all the same size. We have wildly imbalanced schedules - let's balance them out. We have beauty contests like preseason polls, helmet teams, and non-champs vs champs - let's get rid of these. We can only do this 'cleaning up' if all teams start each season with equal access to the national championship. Not an equal likelihood, but equal access. The P5 tearing away from the G5 is step one. The continuation is the ACC/Big XII battle to the death/combining. After that, scheduling equalities - both in terms of strength of schedule as well as a balance of home/away games - for everyone.
-
There is a current one, but it's not enforced. 30k Stadium, and 17k average attendence.
I thought that was the FBS minimum, not P5 or conference minimum.
-
I thought that was the FBS minimum, not P5 or conference minimum.
Reading further, that was the FBS minimum. Now there is no stadium size, and attendance is 15k. Akron and Kent get to that "magic" threshold by having the school by lots of tickets and giving them away.
846badgerfan, propsed upping the attendance to 50 for the P5, and I was noting that we would lose half our conference if that was the case.
-
I thought that was the FBS minimum, not P5 or conference minimum.
You are correct.
Some of our conference members need to pick it up a bit.
-
Well this past year, the PAC12 and ACC averaged under 50,000, so yeah. You'd end up with about 35 P5 schools....
-
Starting to sound more sustainable to me.
-
This surprises me..............
Subsidy from school or student fees:
Rutgers $33,087,478
Minnesota $14,817,134
Maryland $14,473,659
Illinois $3,281,700
Wisconsin $2,843,000
Indiana $2,569,044
Michigan St. $901,057
Iowa $650,000
Michigan $280,647
Purdue, Nebraska, Penn St., & Ohio St. $0
noted that Michigan gave much more than their amount back - so why take it?
My interpretation is that there is a lot of flexibility in these numbers. For example, note that Michigan had less athletes than Ohio State (905 vs 1,011) but they "spent" more on scholarships ($25.1M vs $20.1M). That is simply because Michigan's tuition is higher. One thing I don't know is, does the Athletic Department get in-state rates for in-state recruits? My guess is that it would make a BIG difference. Most of those athletes are not nationally recruited football/basketball stars. Most of them are local volleyballers, swimmers, runners, etc. Per a quick google, tuition:
- Michigan $15k in-state, $47k out-of-state
- Ohio State $11k in-state, $30k out-of-state
Using the article:
- Michigan spent $25.1M on 905 athletes = $28k each
- Ohio State spent $20.1M on 1,011 athletes = $20k each
If I were the chief accountant for either tOSU or Michigan I could pretty easily flex these numbers by either granting the AD in-state tuition for all athletes $13.6M for Michigan, $11.1M for tOSU or charging them out-of-state rates, $42.5M for Michigan, $30.3M for tOSU.
My guess is that there are plenty of other areas where the people in charge can flex these numbers to make them look the way they want them to look. Another example is the revenue from selling things like sweatshirts that are not explicitly athletic. Ie, if @Anonymous Coward (https://www.cfb51.com/index.php?action=profile;u=1513) buys a sweatshirt that has "Michigan Football" printed on it, that is obviously revenue to the Athletic Department. However, if he buys a sweatshirt that just has "Michigan" printed on it, I don't know how that is accounted for. Further, I'm not even sure what would be "fair". Obviously some buyers of "Michigan" gear are buying it for non-athletic reasons but it is equally obvious that some of those buyers are showing their support for Michigan's football, basketball, and other athletic programs. How that gets accounted for is something that you'd probably never be able to figure out and if I were in charge of accounting for Michigan or Ohio State I could flex that however I felt I needed to.
-
I would guess the chief accountant on the academic side would hold stiff on out of state athletes and take the added money from the chief accountant on the athletic side
yes, you could obviously play with the numbers, but most academic accounting departments are grasping for every dollar these days
I know it's a huge topic at the University of Nebraska system and the 3 state schools in Iowa
The Hawkeyes don't take much from the academic side, but that would be one of the first places to cut the budget. Perhaps the U of Iowa does something similar to Michigan
I also know that UNL athletics pours money into the academic side. Osborne started that decades ago.
Just thankful my daughter doesn't attend Rutgers, Minnesoota, or Maryland
-
Out of state UW athletes are calculated at the out of state tuition rate, which carries a cost of attendance of $53K/year ($37K tuition). Additional costs would include training, tutoring, etc. I do not have numbers on that stuff.
-
The $200-some-thousand Michigan subsidy is required by the state constitution. It isn't due to Athletic Department need but due to the fact that there is some specific fellowship(s) (or somesuch) within the A.D. that according to state law must come from government dollars.
At least that's what they say. It makes sense, however, given the teensy subsidy to the AD despite the $4+ MM giveback from the AD to the university.
-
Something I think is interesting: we often say that Minnesota was once a fully entrenched helmet and after "a long time" they lost it. But "a long time" doesn't really mean anything without a point of comparison. Absent cataclysm, the length of time it took for a school like Minnesota to lose its status is a flash in the pan compared to what it'll take for a modern helmet to lose its status now.
As a starting point, we don't even really know when Minnesota ceased to be viewed as a "helmet".
First off:
I've seen a lot of people cite 1967 as "the end" because that was Minnesota's last conference title. Also, I think these people assume that Minnesota's 1960 NC needs to be included. However, as I noted above, Minnesota's 1960 NC Claim is particularly weak: They lost to a mediocre Purdue team, finished as BigTen co-Champ (with Iowa), went to the RoseBowl, and lost to Washington. In 1960 Minnesota did beat co-champ Iowa but they didn't play the next two best teams (4-2 tOSU and 3-2 MSU). Further, Minnesota's OOC was terrible. They beat Nebraska who sucked that year and Kansas State who sucked worse.
Minnesota's 1967 BigTen Championship is another co-championship. It was a weird year. Indiana, Minnesota, and Purdue all finished 6-1. Ohio State finished 5-2 and the rest of the BigTen all finished below .500. Purdue was almost certainly the best team in the league that year. The Boilermakers curb-stomped both Minnesota and Ohio State and lost a close game in Bloomington. Minnesota curb-stomped Indiana and didn't have to play tOSU. Indiana also avoided Ohio State.
I would submit that by the time Minnesota won their last two conference titles in 1960 and 1967 they were already a non-helmet. Those wins were basically just flash-in-the-pan successes that many non-helmets experience once in a while.
What is surprising is how abrupt Minnesota's fall was. I already mentioned Minnesota's back-to-back undefeated and untied conference and national championship seasons in 1940 and 1941. Additionally, they had:
- 39: off year
- 38: conference title
- 37: conference title
- 36: tied with tOSU for second behind NU, won NC
- 35: conference and national titles
- 34: conference and national titles
- 33: conference title
- 30-32: off years
- 29: tied with NU for third behind PU and IL
- 28: third behind IL and UW
- 27: conference title
As of 1941 the Gophers had six NC's. Michigan had seven. Neither Ohio State nor Nebraska had won one yet. Illinois had four.
As of 1941 the Gophers had 16 league titles. Michigan had 15. Illinois had eight. Ohio State and Wisconsin had five each. Iowa had three.
My point is that Minnesota's success in 40-41 was not a flash-in-the-pan thing. They were a consistently powerful team basically from the formation of the conference up until the beginning of WWII.
The war years are a confusing mess. With draftees leaving and trainees arriving it wasn't unusual for teams to be great one year and terrible the next. For example, Ohio State went 5-1 in conference and 9-1 overall in winning their first NC in 1942 then went 1-4/3-5 in 1943. During the war league titles were won by 42: tOSU, 43: PU and M, 44: tOSU, 45: IU.
After the war Michigan quickly resumed being a consistent power (for a short time) but Minnesota simply never came back. The Wolverines had back-to-back undefeated seasons and conference and national titles in 47-48. Then they won the next two BigTen titles as well (one shared with tOSU). Over those same four years Minnesota, who had been every bit of Michigan's equal in the 30's went 3-3, 5-2, 4-2, 1-4-1.
Here is the thing that I find interesting. Michigan had their own fall from grace. From 1951-1968 the Wolverines only won one conference title and no NC's. BigTen titles over those 18 years:
- 5: Ohio State
- 3: Wisconsin
- 3: Iowa
- 3: MSU
- 3: Illinois
- 2: Minnesota
- 2: Purdue
- 1: Indiana
- 1: Michigan
Michigan obviously recovered strongly with the hiring of Bo in 1969 and his immediate success. Within a few years Michigan was known as one half of the "BigTwo" while Minnesota was one eighth of the "LittleEight". Why did Michigan recover while Minnesota did not? Also note that Michigan's fall from grace and recovery both occurred prior to your 1970 date of helmets being fixed.
-
Something I think is interesting: we often say that Minnesota was once a fully entrenched helmet and after "a long time" they lost it. But "a long time" doesn't really mean anything without a point of comparison. Absent cataclysm, the length of time it took for a school like Minnesota to lose its status is a flash in the pan compared to what it'll take for a modern helmet to lose its status now.
Shorter version of my above post:
There WAS a cataclysm. When the germans bombed pearl harbor (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=V8lT1o0sDwI) Minnesota was a "helmet". After WWII ended they never resumed that.
-
Bo interviewed at Wisconsin before he interviewed with Michigan. Wisconsin professors cocked up that interview so bad, Bo left and never even followed up.
Of course, in that period, Wisconsin was seriously considering shuttering athletics. Only the powerful alumni base prevented it, and 20 years later UW finally hit that home run with Shalala/Richter/Alvarez.
My how things might have been different, eh?
-
Bo interviewed at Wisconsin before he interviewed with Michigan. Wisconsin professors cocked up that interview so bad, Bo left and never even followed up.
Of course, in that period, Wisconsin was seriously considering shuttering athletics. Only the powerful alumni base prevented it, and 20 years later UW finally hit that home run with Shalala/Richter/Alvarez.
My how things might have been different, eh?
They could have been VERY different. When did Bo interview at Wisconsin, was it the same time between the 68 and 69 seasons? It is interesting to think of Wisconsin football's surge starting in 1969 instead of 1993.
The other side of that is Michigan. I am not convinced that Michigan would ever have recovered if they had screwed up the 1969 hire. Per my above post, from 1951-1968 Michigan was tied for eighth in the conference in conference titles. They were tied with Indiana and only ahead of Northwestern. Over those same 18 years the Wolverines were:
- 4-12-2 against MSU
- 6-12 against tOSU
- 2-5 against Purdue
- 10-8 against Minnesota
- 4-3 against Wisconsin
- 11-7 against Illinois
- 7-4 against Indiana
- 7-2-2 against Iowa
- 12-4 against Northwestern
Given the Rose only rule in effect back then they also only played in one Bowl game, the 1965 RoseBowl against Oregon State. In Michigan's BigTen Championship year of 1964 they lost at home to Purdue. Purdue ended up one game behind them due to road losses to both MSU and Minnesota. It could have easily gone the other way.
What if Michigan hadn't become the other half of the "BigTwo" in the 70's? Maybe Wisconsin would have been there instead? Would Michigan be a "helmet" today?
-
Here is a small piece on it.
It was 1967 for Bo.
https://www.landof10.com/wisconsin/wisconsin-interviewed-bo-schembechler-and-bob-knight-but-didnt-hire-either
There's a lot more out there too.
-
Here is a small piece on it.
It was 1967 for Bo.
https://www.landof10.com/wisconsin/wisconsin-interviewed-bo-schembechler-and-bob-knight-but-didnt-hire-either
There's a lot more out there too.
Wow, thank you for sharing. That just blows my mind. I'm trying to imagine the differences with Bo (starting in 1967) and Bob Knight (starting in 1968) leading Wisconsin's football and basketball programs through the 70's and 80's.
-
Bobby Knight would have been the bigger deal
obviously
-
Fielding Yost was a candidate for the OSU job in 1897, and was promptly escorted off of the campus due to his maniacal behavior during the interview.
-
hah, no wonder he ended up at UNL in 1898
In 1898, Yost was hired to coach the Nebraska football team with compensation of $1,000 for 10 weeks of service.[12] The 1898 Nebraska team compiled an 8–3 record, including victories over Iowa State (23-10), Missouri (47–6), Kansas (18–6), and Colorado (23–10), and losses to Drake (6–5) and Iowa (6–5).
almost as good as Bo Pelini
-
Wow.
I knew that OWU hired him that year instead.
I didn't know that he also spent one season at each Nebraska, Kansas and Stanford before settling into the Michigan job in 1901.
That's a whole lotta bouncing around.
-
too much maniacal behavior
-
Shit happens and shit happened.
Wisconsin won the first two Western Conference championships, without helmets.
Apparently the helmet thing happened later?
(https://www.cfb51.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.100percentauthentic.com%2Fpics%2F70418_03_lg.jpg&hash=8c9eee3638a21c9b972fac55f5555b8a)
Literally.
Good thing Princeton had the wing helmet first. Is Princeton a helmet school?
(https://www.cfb51.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.pasttimesports.biz%2Fproducts%2Ffullsize%2FPrincetonLGLG.jpg&hash=94d0045339fcd4883b7f9fc8a475f5e5)
Wisconsin will never be a helmet because people say so.
-
These are my favorite UW helmets:
(https://www.cfb51.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.helmethut.com%2FCollege%2FWisconsin%2Fwiscon1.JPG&hash=f145ed0a29ff170a64537df95be4c29c)
-
So.. in the Big Ten, there are a good number of schools hitting nice attendance numbers, capacity-wise.
Then there are these, as pointed out earlier:
Illinois: 45,644 (75 percent)
Rutgers: 44,804 (85 percent)
Minnesota: 43,814 (83 percent)
Indiana: 43,027 (82 percent)
Maryland: 39,615 (76 percent)
Northwestern: 34,798 (74 percent)
Purdue: 34,798 (60 percent)
I think it would be good if everyone could get to 90 percent. Illinois, Maryland, Northwestern and Purdue have a lot of work to do in this area. Rutgers, Minnie and Indiana are really close.
Fix this!! Most of these schools have stadiettes, so it shouldn't be that hard.
-
So.. in the Big Ten, there are a good number of schools hitting nice attendance numbers, capacity-wise.
Then there are these, as pointed out earlier:
Illinois: 45,644 (75 percent)
Rutgers: 44,804 (85 percent)
Minnesota: 43,814 (83 percent)
Indiana: 43,027 (82 percent)
Maryland: 39,615 (76 percent)
Northwestern: 34,798 (74 percent)
Purdue: 34,798 (60 percent)
I think it would be good if everyone could get to 90 percent. Illinois, Maryland, Northwestern and Purdue have a lot of work to do in this area. Rutgers, Minnie and Indiana are really close.
Fix this!! Most of these schools have stadiettes, so it shouldn't be that hard.
Just note that the Purdue numbers are pre-Brohm.
-
What is capacity there now?
Even pre-King Barry, during the Morton years, UW averaged way more than that.
They won 6 games in those three years and averaged over 50K in that time. Of course, the population of greater Madison was well over 300K, even back then. That probably helped.
-
So.. in the Big Ten, there are a good number of schools hitting nice attendance numbers, capacity-wise.
Then there are these, as pointed out earlier:
Illinois: 45,644 (75 percent)
Rutgers: 44,804 (85 percent)
Minnesota: 43,814 (83 percent)
Indiana: 43,027 (82 percent)
Maryland: 39,615 (76 percent)
Northwestern: 34,798 (74 percent)
Purdue: 34,798 (60 percent)
I think it would be good if everyone could get to 90 percent. Illinois, Maryland, Northwestern and Purdue have a lot of work to do in this area. Rutgers, Minnie and Indiana are really close.
Fix this!! Most of these schools have stadiettes, so it shouldn't be that hard.
80% of capactiy is typically consider the tipping point for "healthy attendance" or "needs improvement".
As others have stated attendance has several variables, like opponet, time and weather, but 80%+ is the goal of most AD's.
-
What is capacity there now?
Even pre-King Barry, during the Morton years, UW averaged way more than that.
They won 6 games in those three years and averaged over 50K in that time. Of course, the population of greater Madison was well over 300K, even back then. That probably helped.
they had cheese curds, sausages, and beer
-
What is capacity there now?
Normally 62.5K but currently only about 57K, due to major changes in the south end zone.
-
they had cheese curds, sausages, and beer
Very true - the tailgates had probably 3-4 times as many people than actually went in. Not to mention the bars.
-
more to life than football
-
BLASPHEMER!!!
-
So.. in the Big Ten, there are a good number of schools hitting nice attendance numbers, capacity-wise.
Then there are these, as pointed out earlier:
Illinois: 45,644 (75 percent)
Rutgers: 44,804 (85 percent)
Minnesota: 43,814 (83 percent)
Indiana: 43,027 (82 percent)
Maryland: 39,615 (76 percent)
Northwestern: 34,798 (74 percent)
Purdue: 34,798 (60 percent)
I think it would be good if everyone could get to 90 percent. Illinois, Maryland, Northwestern and Purdue have a lot of work to do in this area. Rutgers, Minnie and Indiana are really close.
Fix this!! Most of these schools have stadiettes, so it shouldn't be that hard.
Rutgers Attendence on a steady decline:
2017: 39,749 (7 home games)
2016: 44,804 (7)
2015: 47,723 (7)
2014: 50,632 (6) (1st year in B1G and highest attendence in Rutgers history.)
Can we end the failed Rutgers experiment? This program is going backwards.
-
They earned their keep by knocking off the Wolverines.
(https://s.yimg.com/ny/api/res/1.2/.zbsf8QC8XKkiRQa4vk6lw--/YXBwaWQ9aGlnaGxhbmRlcjtzbT0xO3c9ODAwO2lsPXBsYW5l/http://media.zenfs.com/en_US/Sports/AP_NCAAF/201410042213800281245-p5.jpg)
-
They earned their keep by knocking off the Wolverines.
That's setting the bar pretty low.
-
Rutgers Attendence on a steady decline:
how's the BTN subscription rate going?
probably a steady decline like most markets
-
They earned their keep by knocking off the Wolverines.
(https://s.yimg.com/ny/api/res/1.2/.zbsf8QC8XKkiRQa4vk6lw--/YXBwaWQ9aGlnaGxhbmRlcjtzbT0xO3c9ODAwO2lsPXBsYW5l/http://media.zenfs.com/en_US/Sports/AP_NCAAF/201410042213800281245-p5.jpg)
But if that's the only threshold, then Toledo should get an invite, and nobody wants that :57:
-
But if that's the only threshold, then Toledo should get an invite, and nobody wants that :57:
Or Appy State.