CFB51 College Football Fan Community
The Power Five => Big Ten => Topic started by: ohio1317 on December 06, 2018, 01:00:52 AM
-
https://www.centredaily.com/sports/college/penn-state-university/psu-football/article222662380.html
I personally doubt this ends up going anywhere, but apparently at least discussions of going without divisions and matching up best 2 as the Big 12 does. I personally like it, but think they'll be reluctant to do it (easier in the Big 12 with a full round robin of teams).
If they ever did though, assuming 9 conference games remain (10 is better, but probably unrealistic), then I think you lock 3 games for each team and have the other 10 rotate (meaning you play everyone both home and away over 4 years).
-
I have thought of this but didn't think others would. I still haven't formulated my thoughts on it completely. East and west would play each other more, but East v. East and West v. West, wouldn't. I would guess amongst the east that the traditionalists would like playing the "real" Big Ten teams more often.
So far I am satisfied with what we have, but as I am a blossoming oldster, I miss playing Ohio State, Michigan, Indiana and MSU most years, even though at 5'8" I wasn't actually the guy playing them.
-
Delaney issued a peculiar statement about needing to make sure the top 2 teams are in the CCG.
-
I have thought of this but didn't think others would. I still haven't formulated my thoughts on it completely. East and west would play each other more, but East v. East and West v. West, wouldn't. I would guess amongst the east that the traditionalists would like playing the "real" Big Ten teams more often.
So far I am satisfied with what we have, but as I am a blossoming oldster, I miss playing Ohio State, Michigan, Indiana and MSU most years, even though at 5'8" I wasn't actually the guy playing them.
All of this.
-
Delaney issued a peculiar statement about needing to make sure the top 2 teams are in the CCG.
Most years, it has been that way. So this year the 1st and 3rd play and that's not good enough? Screw him.
-
I thought it was an NCAA requirement that there has to be a true round-robin schedule in order to do the top-two-go-to-the-championship-game thing, as the Big 12 does.
-
Thats what get me. They had this discussion a few years ago. They ended up relaxing the CCG rule so you didn't need 12, but still needed round robin (in divison as the 10 team Sun Belt does or for the whole conference as the Big 12 does).
That said, at the time, it was the Big 12 and ACC suggesting change and I think Big Ten only willing to go half way with it. If they change their vote, it would go a long way. This is actually one of the rules the power 5 conferences have autonomy on I believe meaning you do not need to get whole NCAA involved which makes change much easier.
-
At the end of the day, I 100 percent support the change because I want to play the western teams more, but they better realize this would not be clean. With 14 teams, you miss 4 teams a year still. That will lead to some very different strength of schedules.
-
Maybe a rule could be if a division champ has say 4 losses and the runner up on the other side only has 2 or fewer, you could cross over.
That would of course mean a repeat game, but that happens at times anyway.
-
At the end of the day, I 100 percent support the change because I want to play the western teams more, but they better realize this would not be clean. With 14 teams, you miss 4 teams a year still. That will lead to some very different strength of schedules.
The not clean SOS is not great. I like the schedule side of it. I assume no matter what there's a live with it factor.
-
Maybe a rule could be if a division champ has say 4 losses and the runner up on the other side only has 2 or fewer, you could cross over.
That would of course mean a repeat game, but that happens at times anyway.
Thing is, Northwestern went 8-1 in Big Ten play. I don't want to start bringing OOC into it. I would prefer to go to 10 games and say any time one division runner up is two games ahead (ignoring tiebreakers) in conference record of the other division champ, they go.
I do find it funny how often these conferences want to manipulate things to get their desired result, while the SEC just went first, went geographic, and have been just fine. ACC tried to set up FSU-Miami, never got it. Big Ten tried to set up UM-OSU, couldn't get it, abandoned the plan, now are trying to formulate a new plan. Funny thing is, as undesirable as rematches are, a rematch of a season ending rivalry game would be flat out awful. I'm glad we dodged that bullet with Oklahoma-WVU, and that's not even a rivalry.
-
Funny thing is, as undesirable as rematches are, a rematch of a season ending rivalry game would be flat out awful. I'm glad we dodged that bullet with Oklahoma-WVU, and that's not even a rivalry.
I agree on this completely. OU/TX was, of course, a rematch, all the B12CG's are but in this case it was an early December rematch of a game played in early October.
In the current B1G set-up the only cross-over game in the last week is IU/PU. The only one in the second-to-last week was MSU/UNL and the only one in the third-to-last week (Nov 10) was UW/PSU. In the fourth-to-last week there were two but that is almost a month before the CG so a rematch of one of those wouldn't be too bad.
This year the B1G-W Champ didn't play the B1G-E Champ in the regular season so the closest we came to a rematch was B1G-E Co-Champ Michigan had played B1G-W Champ Northwestern but that game was in September.
As I see it, the problem with a non-divisional CG is that with 14 teams each team misses four. As others in this thread have mentioned, that can cause VAST differences in SoS. This year, for example, Wisconsin missed #1 but played #2, #3, #4, #5, and #6/7. That is a heck of a lot tougher schedule than Northwestern who played one of the top-4 or Ohio State who played three of the top-7.
-
Twelve team conferences would help out I think.
That change didn't help IMHO.
-
I'd leave the divisions alone... SEC had a great Championship game this year, so I read... but a just a few years ago these were routes.
I'll still repeat what I said before.... Move MSU to the West, someone else to the East. Keep the 9 game conference schedule but on the 3rd week in Sept, have crossover rivalry week. In this scenario, MSU would play Michigan... PSU and Nebraska could lock horns... etc.. A tweak based upon historical win %'s is what they need, not a drastic change. jmo
-
1. Fire Delany.
2. Nix the Big Ten championship game in favor of adding a 10th conference game. Drop a non-conference game to cap the number of games at 12. Don't care if the school needs an 8th home game to fund facilities. Each school could designate a few teams that they wish to play every year. For Michigan that would likely be Sparty, the Gophers, and Ohio State. The other schools would rotate on/off the schedule as in past years. This would weed out a lot of the cupcake games and make finding opponents to schedule easier to find. Keep the playoff as is or go back to just 1 vs. 2. Or just go back to traditional bowl games with no national championship BS. Do you really need a "national champion?" I sure as hell don't.
-
I do find it funny how often these conferences want to manipulate things to get their desired result, while the SEC just went first, went geographic, and have been just fine. ACC tried to set up FSU-Miami, never got it. Big Ten tried to set up UM-OSU, couldn't get it, abandoned the plan, now are trying to formulate a new plan. Funny thing is, as undesirable as rematches are, a rematch of a season ending rivalry game would be flat out awful. I'm glad we dodged that bullet with Oklahoma-WVU, and that's not even a rivalry.
This.
I feel like the leadership keeps tripping over itself, because it cannot decide on what it wants the league to be. It desires all the bennies of being this 14-team superconference, but still somehow remain the quaint Woody v Bo-centric league that it was in ancient times. The contortions that the rest of us are being put through in pursuit of these contradictory goals are ridiculous…particularly in light of the hot air we hear from the league about solidarity. Time to practice what we preach.
Decide on who want to be as a league, build the appropriate structure, and live with it. Move Michigan back to the West in exchange for Illinois, and play The Game in October so that if there is a rematch in the CCG, its 4-6 weeks later. Or move Sparty into the West for Illinois, play The Game as normal, and just deal with the fact it will never determine the conference champion. Whatever...just decide FFS, and move on.
-
Moving Purdue East would solve the permanent crossover issue they face, but you'd introduce another if, say, MSU were moved West. They and Michigan are going to want to continue that game every year.
-
Thing is, Northwestern went 8-1 in Big Ten play. I don't want to start bringing OOC into it. I would prefer to go to 10 games and say any time one division runner up is two games ahead (ignoring tiebreakers) in conference record of the other division champ, they go.
I do find it funny how often these conferences want to manipulate things to get their desired result, while the SEC just went first, went geographic, and have been just fine. ACC tried to set up FSU-Miami, never got it. Big Ten tried to set up UM-OSU, couldn't get it, abandoned the plan, now are trying to formulate a new plan. Funny thing is, as undesirable as rematches are, a rematch of a season ending rivalry game would be flat out awful. I'm glad we dodged that bullet with Oklahoma-WVU, and that's not even a rivalry.
tbf, geographic worked out perfect for the sec (the first time around anyway, the expansion muddied it somewhat).
the historically top 6 (bama, tenn, uga, au, uf, lsu) were split evenly, and so were the newcomers at the time. do that with the b1g, acc and pac and it ends up lopsided with the historically best teams.
-
How far back does "historically" go?
-
Moving Purdue East would solve the permanent crossover issue they face, but you'd introduce another if, say, MSU were moved West. They and Michigan are going to want to continue that game every year.
that is why you have the 3rd week in Sept to play your teams cross divisional rival. =)
-
that is why you have the 3rd week in Sept to play your teams cross divisional rival. =)
I'd rather not see any cross-divisional rivals. It's too limiting.
-
This idea appeals to me mainly because getting rid of divisions creates a chance to play all the teams more often, not because there is anything wrong with the divisions they have chosen.
If you do the math, no divisions would probably mean 5 permanent opponents and 8 teams you play half the time. This is better than the current division schedules.
But it is not important to me that the 2 best teams end up in the CCG, as long as the 2 best teams did play during the regular season, it's ok. I don't see a big need for a rematch.
-
Moving Purdue East would solve the permanent crossover issue they face, but you'd introduce another if, say, MSU were moved West. They and Michigan are going to want to continue that game every year.
I'd be ok with not playing every year. Even if you did flip them, and made that the protected rivalry, unlike the Bucket, neither fan base has a problem with that game being played in September or October, so it wouldn't be a back to back rematch.
Granted with 7 team divisions you are always going to have one crossover game per week minimum.
-
11 teams. No divisions. Full round robin. No CCG.
-
If you set up a schedule with 5 permanent rivals it could look something like this
Team - 5 rivals
Neb - Iowa, Minn, Wisc, NW, PSU
Iowa - Neb, Minn, Wisc, NW, ILL
Minn - Neb, Iowa, Wisc, Mich, Indy
Wisc - Neb, Iowa, Minn, NW, MSU
NW - ILL, Neb, Iowa, Wisc, Pur
ILL - NW, Indy, Pur, Iowa, OSU
Pur - Indy, NW, ILL, Mich, Rut
Indy - Pur, ILL, MSU, MD, Minn
MSU - Mich, Wisc, Indy, PSU, Rut
Mich - OSU, MSU, Pur, Minn, MD
OSU - Mich, PSU, ILL, Rut, MD
PSU - OSU, MD, Rut, MSU, Neb
MD - PSU, Rut, OSU, Mich, Indy
Rut - PSU, MD, OSU, MSU, Pur
-
This.
I feel like the leadership keeps tripping over itself, because it cannot decide on what it wants the league to be. It desires all the bennies of being this 14-team superconference, but still somehow remain the quaint Woody v Bo-centric league that it was in ancient times. The contortions that the rest of us are being put through in pursuit of these contradictory goals are ridiculous…particularly in light of the hot air we hear from the league about solidarity. Time to practice what we preach.
Decide on who want to be as a league, build the appropriate structure, and live with it. Move Michigan back to the West in exchange for Illinois, and play The Game in October so that if there is a rematch in the CCG, its 4-6 weeks later. Or move Sparty into the West for Illinois, play The Game as normal, and just deal with the fact it will never determine the conference champion. Whatever...just decide FFS, and move on.
Hell no to moving "The Game"
-
Most years, it has been that way. So this year the 1st and 3rd play and that's not good enough? Screw him.
I am a little confused. The article states it would have been better if OSU and Mich played in the CCG. But they did play, just a week prior to that.
If you accept the idea that OSU, Mich, and PSU are the 3 best teams, they all did play each other, so what's the problem?
-
How far back does "historically" go?
at least 3?
-
11 teams. No divisions. Full round robin. No CCG.
would never work ;D
-
at least 3?
3 what?
-
So how would this have worked out in previous years? Yes, I know the schedules would have been different but just for the sake of argument
2018 CCG: OSU vs. MICH
OSU 8-1
Mich 8-1
NW 8-1
Not sure how the tiebreaker would work, but guessing NW would lose the tiebreaker
.
2017 CCG Wisc vs. OSU
Wisc 9-0
OSU 8-1
PSU, MSU, NW 7-2
.
2016 CCG PSU vs. OSU
PSU 8-1
OSU 8-1
Mich 7-2
Wisc 7-2
.
2015 CCG Iowa vs. MSU
Iowa 8-0
MSU 7-1
OSU 7-1
MSU would win the tiebreaker based on H2H win
.
2014 CCG OSU vs. MSU/Wisc
OSU 8-0
Wisc 7-1
MSU 7-1
No clue how they would do the tiebreaker for this one. Maybe Medina can figure it out.
-
Problem is you'd probably have to revert to the old 11 team tiebreakers that accounted for not all teams playing each other.
-
I am a little confused. The article states it would have been better if OSU and Mich played in the CCG. But they did play, just a week prior to that.
If you accept the idea that OSU, Mich, and PSU are the 3 best teams, they all did play each other, so what's the problem?
The problem, to the extent that there is one, is that the CG ended up NOT being a springboard for the winner into the CFP.
Imagine for a minute that Michigan had beaten Notre Dame. They'd have finished 11-1 with no CG. Ohio State would have finished 12-1 with a shiny B1G trophy but both might have been left out of the CFP at least in part because Ohio State's CG opponent wasn't impressive to the committee. Now if they had played each other in the CG then the winner would have been 12-1 with a B1G Championship and some very impressive wins. That winner likely gets in ahead of even Oklahoma. They certainly don't end up ranked behind 2-loss non-Champion Georgia.
-
2014 CCG OSU vs. MSU/Wisc
OSU 8-0
Wisc 7-1
MSU 7-1
No clue how they would do the tiebreaker for this one. Maybe Medina can figure it out.
Typically the B1G's first tiebreaker is H2H but MSU and UW didn't play in 2014. After that the next one is usually record against the best team(s) in the conference. That would be 8-0 Ohio State. The Badgers didn't play Ohio State so they are 0-0 but MSU lost to the Buckeyes so they are 0-1, Wisconsin goes.
-
Haven't read any of this thread, but saw this discussion elsewhere.
Since re-alignment, I've always believed that there should be 16 team conferences, 7 games on your side, 1 cross-over being your "rival", and then 4 OOC.
Then, have 6 power conferences, and extra playoff games.
This could be done, and would eliminate conferences being left out.
I saw this coming, as did many others, when you have 5 power conferences, and only 4 spots. Add to the fact that Notre freaking Dame gets to ride the wave of a weak ACC as well, so they can get up for only a handful of games, and slide into the playoff picture.
Something needs to be done, because the B1G is one of, if not the strongest conference top to bottom, and "we're" (because I don't ride the accomplishments of others) left out again.
-
Hell no to moving "The Game"
I agree as long as tOSU and M are in the same division but I absolutely hate the idea of a rematch played one week after the first game . . .
-
I don't mean to get all cloak-and-dagger, but is there something the B10 and/or SEC could do to hasten either the BigXII or ACC's downfall?
If we had 4 "P5" conferences, all of this would be moot.
As I've said in the past, the SEC and B10 are safe, due to health. The PAC is safe due to geography. But on a long-enough timeline, both the XII and the ACC won't last. I believe the ACC is the stronger of the two, and a conference comprised of the best from both would be legit. ND's tie with the ACC only makes me more certain they'll outlast the XII.
With 4 big-boy conferences, you'd be able to alternate which conference you played OOC, you could sign 5-year agreements, stuff like that.
Anyway, if I was a person in power in college football, I would explore getting the XII and ACC to clash sooner rather than later, because if one sort of slowly dies over time, it will drag everything down for a spell.
-
The ACC effectively killed the Big East. Not so sure they could accomplish same with the Big 12, which has already survived raids by both the SEC and Big Ten.
What would kill the Big 12 (and would have 8 years ago) is if the PAC took on Texas and OU (and maybe 2 others). That would be the end.
-
I don't mean to get all cloak-and-dagger, but is there something the B10 and/or SEC could do to hasten either the BigXII or ACC's downfall?
If we had 4 "P5" conferences, all of this would be moot.
As I've said in the past, the SEC and B10 are safe, due to health. The PAC is safe due to geography. But on a long-enough timeline, both the XII and the ACC won't last. I believe the ACC is the stronger of the two, and a conference comprised of the best from both would be legit. ND's tie with the ACC only makes me more certain they'll outlast the XII.
With 4 big-boy conferences, you'd be able to alternate which conference you played OOC, you could sign 5-year agreements, stuff like that.
Anyway, if I was a person in power in college football, I would explore getting the XII and ACC to clash sooner rather than later, because if one sort of slowly dies over time, it will drag everything down for a spell.
I'm not sure how it will ultimately come about because the newer and more complex conference contracts make it more complicated than it used to be but I think that in the long run the B12 will die and ND will more-than-likely be forced to join the ACC more completely.
On the issue of Notre Dame:
It would probably be good for both the Irish and the ACC if they came up with some kind of arrangement where Notre Dame could replace the weaker divisional champion in certain circumstances. Notre Dame's experience this year may have made this more clear to all involved. They ended up fine because they were undefeated but it seems pretty obvious that a one-loss Notre Dame would have been on the outside looking in. Meanwhile, playing a bad Pitt team in the ACC Championship didn't hurt Clemson this year because they were undefeated but if they had needed a quality win in the CG, they wouldn't have been able to get it.
Notre Dame played five ACC schools this year (Wake, VaTech, Pitt, FSU, Syracuse). Maybe they and the ACC will increase that to six per year and allow the Irish to replace the weaker divisional champion anytime their record vs ACC teams is better than the weaker divisional Champion by a set amount. That would have made the ACCCG a much higher rated game this year as it would effectively have been a NC quarter-final. I understand that it would have hurt the ACC/ND this year because it would likely have knocked one of them out of the CFP but they can figure out as I can that situations will be different in different years.
On the issue of the B12:
I still think that 14 is just not the right number of teams for a conference. When @847badgerfan (https://www.cfb51.com/index.php?action=profile;u=5) and others say "go back to 11" or "go back to 10", I get where they are coming from. At the same time, we all know that isn't going to happen. The PAC already tried to expand to 16 and my assumption is that the B1G, ACC, and SEC are thinking the same thing. I think OU/TX to the B1G might happen but it is more likely that they will end up in either the PAC or SEC, probably the PAC. Then the SEC and B1G will probably grab two each out of the B12/ACC and the remnants of the ACC and B12 will be effectively forced to merge and we'll have our four super-conferences.
-
Agreed. But is there any particular action that could be taken to fast-forward all of that?
-
PAC poaches UTA & OU.
SEC poaches OKST & KU (for basketball), Bama & Auburn move to the East.
B10 poaches 2 of UVA, VT, UNC, Pitt
ACC gets ND, absorbs WV (geo), TCU (recruiting), then adds some random, contiguous footprint-expansion school like UConn to get to 16.
Everyone is at 16 except the PAC, so they take TxTech and KSU or anyone-but-Boise-but-maybe-Boise to get to 16.
-
The XII somehow outlasting the ACC would be a shocker, but would involve them adding UCF and/or USF, and ND somehow screwing over the ACC. I don't know how they would, but I don't see any other way. The XII isn't going to poach anyone from the B10 or SEC, so they'd have to convince Pitt to be a pair with WV, then add the FL schools, and maybe even go after ND themselves, guaranteeing the Irish they keep all their money and get full membership. I doubt Texas' ego would allow that, though, so it's basically impossible.
The Texas-OU marriage can maintain for now and probably for a good, long while. But it has nowhere to develop or expand, really.
-
Ok, so start with the easy things...
- B1G has 14 members. Kicking any out is unprecedented. Given the money, any leaving voluntarily isn't going to happen.
- SEC is the exact same.
- PAC is similar, but without the money aspect. Even so, I don't see Colorado jumping back to the B12. Utah I think likes the PAC. Unless the B12 could offer some crazy money, I see no reason why the AZ schools would head to the B12. So I don't see them losing anyone.
So you're right. If we have additional consolidation, it's going to be at the cost of either the B12 or the ACC.
The problem is that the B12 doesn't have any good targets to add. The ACC, on the other hand, could probably pull WVU out of the B12 and add ND in a heartbeat, if they could get ND to agree.
So how could the powers that be have gotten this to happen? Leave a 12-0 ND out of the CFP because OU/OSU/UGA/UM were stronger teams despite them being undefeated. If ND believed they'd be penalized by the committee for not being in a conference, they'd be in the ACC. But obviously that didn't happen.
So I see it as pretty simple. If the ACC could somehow convince ND, they steal WVU away from the B12, dropping the B12 to 9. Or if they think blood is in the water and want to expand and not wait on ND, steal WVU and add someone else.
Once that happens, the B12 is done. If the ACC gets ND, then the SEC and B1G will aim at Texas and Oklahoma, with Kansas/OkSU/KSU as possible second-tier choices. If the ACC doesn't get ND, I see the B1G actually getting ND at that point, probably pairing them with Kansas, while the SEC takes Texas and Oklahoma.
-
Typically the B1G's first tiebreaker is H2H but MSU and UW didn't play in 2014. After that the next one is usually record against the best team(s) in the conference. That would be 8-0 Ohio State. The Badgers didn't play Ohio State so they are 0-0 but MSU lost to the Buckeyes so they are 0-1, Wisconsin goes.
Interesting. So how would the 2018 tiebreaker work?
-
Interesting. So how would the 2018 tiebreaker work?
I'm pretty sure it would just be the H2H2H:
- 1-0 Ohio State
- 1-1 Michigan
- 0-1 Northwestern
-
There are so many things about this (unrealistic?) plan to eliminate divisions that are terrible for the Game** but ideal for this specific era of Michigan football in this specific division. Yet, because I always blame those in charge for being short-sighted in their decisions (be them about TV revenue, expansion, etc.), I guess I would vote against Michigan here in the hope (of course this won't actually happen, so I'm just being theoretical) that this particular era of Michigan football will that final step so what's best for M and M/OSU can be the same thing again.
**(whether that means not only risking a rematch, but one in consecutive weeks, and with more likelihood than it had with Leaders and Legends ... or with an equal probability of rematch, moving the Game to October)
-
If it means moving OSU/Michigan up, I'd probably very reluctantly vote to keep divisions (but really hate how rarely we play so many traditional rivals).
If it came to pass, I think what they might push would be moving the game back one week to its traditional ending of the 3rd Saturday in November. It would be the compromise position from moving it up much and not at all and they could play it up as returning to traditional date even if not season ending. Or they might just accept an occasional immediate rematch. It would be less often than people imagine and we have seen it in other conferences recently (Conference USA this year, PAC-12 not too long ago).
-
I'd rather not see any cross-divisional rivals. It's too limiting.
And creates serious potential scheduling imbalances. If Michigan State's East x-over is Michigan and Nebraska's is Rutgers every year, that's a big disadvantage.
-
If it means moving OSU/Michigan up, I'd probably very reluctantly vote to keep divisions (but really hate how rarely we play so many traditional rivals).
If it came to pass, I think what they might push would be moving the game back one week to its traditional ending of the 3rd Saturday in November. It would be the compromise position from moving it up much and not at all and they could play it up as returning to traditional date even if not season ending. Or they might just accept an occasional immediate rematch. It would be less often than people imagine and we have seen it in other conferences recently (Conference USA this year, PAC-12 not too long ago).
The closer in time the rematch happens the more I am opposed to it. I just think it is flat out silly for two teams to play on consecutive Saturdays.
Even moving THE GAME up just one week (to it's traditional date) would help a LOT because it would almost completely eliminate the possibility that I would consider to be the worst-case-scenario:
IMHO, the worst case scenario is this:
- Ohio State and Michigan are in opposite divisions, and
- Ohio State clinches their division before THE GAME, and
- Michigan clinches their division before THE GAME, and
- Both teams would be obviously in the Playoff with a B1G Championship but not a serious contender without it (ie, if we had an auto-bid and both teams were 9-2 heading into THE GAME.
In this worst-case-scenario the winner of the SECOND game would get a CFP auto-bid while the winner of the first game would get nothing.
-
And creates serious potential scheduling imbalances. If Michigan State's East x-over is Michigan and Nebraska's is Rutgers every year, that's a big disadvantage.
That's always been the case. MSU spent the entirety of the 11 team conference being the only school with games against 2 of the 3 helmets locked in, with the option to play the 3rd.
I was actually wondering, now that Purdue is getting good again, if people would start bringing up their built in schedule advantage of playing in the West, but having an East rival locked in who is generally pretty lousy.
-
Best way for the Big10 to shore up the East / West division with the demise of the Big12 would be to add Oklahoma and Notre Dame to the West and shift Purdue back to the East. Then we have a 8 game round robin in each division. For the ninth game, this years finishing standing order from the East and West would play each other then there is no need for a championship game. For games 10 and 11 you would need to play another P4 team and the 12th game could be from a non P4 team. Now you can have a eight team CFP without adding an additional game. This should produce the best team from each of the P4 conferences and have the committee choose the other four participants.
Note: All the P4 conferences would need to agree to go to a 16 team conference and follow the layout I described above for the Big10 to make everyone equal.
-
And that's all the uniformity I was advocating for. Same number of teams per conference, same number of conference games. My only possible 'bridge too far' would be everyone having an equal number of home and away games each season.
-
Ok, so start with the easy things...
- B1G has 14 members. Kicking any out is unprecedented. Given the money, any leaving voluntarily isn't going to happen.
- SEC is the exact same.
- PAC is similar, but without the money aspect. Even so, I don't see Colorado jumping back to the B12. Utah I think likes the PAC. Unless the B12 could offer some crazy money, I see no reason why the AZ schools would head to the B12. So I don't see them losing anyone.
So you're right. If we have additional consolidation, it's going to be at the cost of either the B12 or the ACC.
The problem is that the B12 doesn't have any good targets to add. The ACC, on the other hand, could probably pull WVU out of the B12 and add ND in a heartbeat, if they could get ND to agree.
So how could the powers that be have gotten this to happen? Leave a 12-0 ND out of the CFP because OU/OSU/UGA/UM were stronger teams despite them being undefeated. If ND believed they'd be penalized by the committee for not being in a conference, they'd be in the ACC. But obviously that didn't happen.
So I see it as pretty simple. If the ACC could somehow convince ND, they steal WVU away from the B12, dropping the B12 to 9. Or if they think blood is in the water and want to expand and not wait on ND, steal WVU and add someone else.
Once that happens, the B12 is done. If the ACC gets ND, then the SEC and B1G will aim at Texas and Oklahoma, with Kansas/OkSU/KSU as possible second-tier choices. If the ACC doesn't get ND, I see the B1G actually getting ND at that point, probably pairing them with Kansas, while the SEC takes Texas and Oklahoma.
Yeah, I was wondering why the committee wasn't sort of playing hardball with ND. The room is full of older people who still think the Irish are something special, I guess. Idk.
If the SEC added OU and Texas....whoa boy. They might just secede from the NCAA, because that would be a juggernaut...and I even doubt they'd be appeased by having one of the 4 playoff spots. Limiting programs like OU, Texas, Alabama, Florida, Georgia, Tennessee, Auburn, and LSU to one potential playoff slot wouldn't be smart for that super conference.
-
One idea I've heard (and I haven't checked the whole thread here) on the radio was the idea of getting rid of CCGs. Instead, you'd take the top 8 teams and have a de-facto first round @ the CCG site.
So Alabama would host someone like UCF in Atlanta. Clemson would host Michigan in Charlotte. ND would host OSU in Indianapolis. OU would host Georgia @ JerryWorld.
So the sites are still involved, but each matchup is actually bigger, and it strips away the "who's in the playoff?" banter, because they settle it on the field. The only drawback is for those teams like Pitt and Northwestern, the lesser divison-winners, get no payoff. No carrot at the end of the season to try to pull the upset.
-
Maybe I'm crazy but the lack of uniformity truly does not bother me. Let's get rid of recruiting and split up players like the pro leagues do, and ensure all athletic donations are split among all schools equally. I don't know, if you want to go all in on just being NFL-lite, then go all in. I'm not convinced of why we need that. If the top 5 teams all play someone else in a bowl game at the end, I'm kind of cool with that. But if you want to be NFL-lite, then I think you just might as well go all the way. Dismantle the conferences entirely, and rebuild the whole thing from the ground up. You know, for amateurism or whatever.
-
Best way for the Big10 to shore up the East / West division with the demise of the Big12 would be to add Oklahoma and Notre Dame to the West and shift Purdue back to the East. Then we have a 8 game round robin in each division. For the ninth game, this years finishing standing order from the East and West would play each other then there is no need for a championship game. For games 10 and 11 you would need to play another P4 team and the 12th game could be from a non P4 team. Now you can have a eight team CFP without adding an additional game. This should produce the best team from each of the P4 conferences and have the committee choose the other four participants.
Note: All the P4 conferences would need to agree to go to a 16 team conference and follow the layout I described above for the Big10 to make everyone equal.
8 team divisions would have 7 division games and 2 cross-division games.
-
One idea I've heard (and I haven't checked the whole thread here) on the radio was the idea of getting rid of CCGs. Instead, you'd take the top 8 teams and have a de-facto first round @ the CCG site.
So Alabama would host someone like UCF in Atlanta. Clemson would host Michigan in Charlotte. ND would host OSU in Indianapolis. OU would host Georgia @ JerryWorld.
So the sites are still involved, but each matchup is actually bigger, and it strips away the "who's in the playoff?" banter, because they settle it on the field. The only drawback is for those teams like Pitt and Northwestern, the lesser divison-winners, get no payoff. No carrot at the end of the season to try to pull the upset.
My only complaint about that is how do you determine conference champions? Not saying that conference championships matter for the playoff, since you're taking top 8 teams, without regard to who is a conference champion.
But I want conference championship to matter. I want teams to be playing for that FIRST and for the playoff second. If you have 14, or maybe 16-team conferences, there's no good way to actually determine a conference champion any more without CCG. I mean, if you have 16 teams and the teams tie five ways for conference champion at 7-2, is there any value to a conference championship any more?
-
Maybe I'm crazy but the lack of uniformity truly does not bother me. Let's get rid of recruiting and split up players like the pro leagues do, and ensure all athletic donations are split among all schools equally. I don't know, if you want to go all in on just being NFL-lite, then go all in. I'm not convinced of why we need that. If the top 5 teams all play someone else in a bowl game at the end, I'm kind of cool with that. But if you want to be NFL-lite, then I think you just might as well go all the way. Dismantle the conferences entirely, and rebuild the whole thing from the ground up. You know, for amateurism or whatever.
I have no idea why you'd do any of that. The uniformity I'm talking about would merely make rating the teams all the more easier at the end of the season. Why wouldn't they recruit how they do now? Why wouldn't the bluebloods benefit from their additional monies like they do now?
I just want to sort of socialize everyone's season resumes. The talent disparities would still exist, but the schedules would be more even. It would actually make it so you could almost blindly rank the teams by their record like the voters do now, lol. It would minimalize the context that so many of them ignore now.
-
My only complaint about that is how do you determine conference champions? Not saying that conference championships matter for the playoff, since you're taking top 8 teams, without regard to who is a conference champion.
But I want conference championship to matter. I want teams to be playing for that FIRST and for the playoff second. If you have 14, or maybe 16-team conferences, there's no good way to actually determine a conference champion any more without CCG. I mean, if you have 16 teams and the teams tie five ways for conference champion at 7-2, is there any value to a conference championship any more?
I don't know if they got to that part - I was driving and got to where I was going, couldn't listen to the whole convo.
-
I have no idea why you'd do any of that. The uniformity I'm talking about would merely make rating the teams all the more easier at the end of the season. Why wouldn't they recruit how they do now? Why wouldn't the bluebloods benefit from their additional monies like they do now?
I just want to sort of socialize everyone's season resumes. The talent disparities would still exist, but the schedules would be more even. It would actually make it so you could almost blindly rank the teams by their record like the voters do now, lol. It would minimalize the context that so many of them ignore now.
My point is I like all of that about the sport. I enjoy the quirkiness, I enjoy debate. I have no desire to even things up, and just have NFL lite. I don't want to add more teams that don't fit in conferences just to get to 16 x 4.
-
I'd rather just go back to the pre ACC raid of Big East alignments, start from there to cobble down to 6 conferences of 10. Not sure exactly what that entails off the top of my head. Leave the Pac 10, send PSU and ND to the Big East, send SC back to the ACC. Dump Baylor. I think that pits the SEC and Big XII at 11 rest at 10. Temple is an obvious dump, but then you have to move someone into their slot. Maybe just leave it there at 62, and live with a pair of 11 team conferences. 9 game conference schedule, no CCGs. 6 conference chamos and two at larges. Done.
-
My point is I like all of that about the sport. I enjoy the quirkiness, I enjoy debate. I have no desire to even things up, and just have NFL lite. I don't want to add more teams that don't fit in conferences just to get to 16 x 4.
I don't see it as NFL lite. I'm not suggesting fines for kids who wear their socks differently.
The problem with the NFL is that 12/32 teams get into the playoffs. The NBA is worse, and everybody knows it, because the playoffs wind up being an additional season tacked on at the end.
Getting a little socialist with the schedules would merely test the advantages of the helmet-type teams. The status quo in college football relies on an underclass of schools relegated to be the chum for the P5. Human history has taught us that underlings don't like their role and will rebel eventually.
-
I get where you are coming from, but you are not going to get uniformity in a lot of these things even if everyone wanted it unless you actually merge the major conferences into a super conference who can impose rules.
Think of it like this. Right now, let's say Texas and Oklahoma decide to move from the Big 12. The other conferences aren't going to neatly decide who goes where. They are all going to want those two because they are cash cows and those two will want whatever situation is best for them (not 100% money, but that's a big factor). The PAC-12 might be the one to get them because it would have the most room to expand (could add some travel mates), but money would be a lot better elsewhere (PAC-12 is currently getting less than Big 12 schools; would change with those two, but not like Big Ten or SEC money). Then after they are gone, the others that miss out are not just going to expand for the sake of expanding. If the other 8 Big 12 schools add more money than headaches, sure, but honestly most won't. The Big Ten, SEC, and ACC are already at 14 (maybe more in this situation) and that's not a great desire to expand and play less of each other.
As for my personal view on it, I like the controversy. I don't want 4 conferences and 4 spots because I want to care about those early season out of conference games and those random possible losses along the way. Those matter a lot less if you are talking about conference champs in automatically.
-
With the G5 conferences, the worst thing that can actually happen to them is consolidation in the big conferences. Getting to 4x16 or something like that will only happen if the major conferences merge together in my view. At that point, the likelihood of a formal break with the G5 becomes more likely. There is nothing keeping the current structure of FBS football in place except the schools/conferences decision to keep things as they are. The major conferences have made some concessions to keep Group of 5 conferences happy (money from the playoff bowls, a guarenteed spot in a major bowl regardless of rank, etc), but that only works because the members of those conferences still want to be able to schedule games vs. those schools, win 80% of the time, and then count the win as a full FBS win. If their interest in staying affiliated disappears, there is nothing keeping everyone together but momentum.
-
Why shouldn't the big-boy conferences form their own entity and leave the NCAA? Have a commissioner, start paying players, and legislating their socks......oh wait, that's NFL lite.
-
Why shouldn't the big-boy conferences form their own entity and leave the NCAA? Have a commissioner, start paying players, and legislating their socks......oh wait, that's NFL lite.
I don't think it's practical for the P5 to leave the NCAA for football exclusively.
Either the entire athletic departments leave the NCAA (and prepare for the consequences, which may include the NCAA prohibiting competition with the new P5 association in any sport), or the entire ADs stay.
Of course I could be wrong, but that's my sense. That we remain vulnerable to the NCAA acting out unless the separation is absolute.
-
Chew on this one.
https://247sports.com/college/oklahoma/Article/Big-Ten-targeting-Oklahoma-Sooners-Texas-Longhorns-125965141/Amp/
-
If that happened, I predict the SEC would add UNC and UVA, for the eyeballs. A lot more people in NC and VA than OK or KS.
-
If the Big Ten does get rid of divisions, 2022 would probably be a good time to do it. By that time the Big Ten will have cycled through a full 6 year cycle where everybody had played each other at least twice.
Plus I don't believe the announced schedules for 2022-2025 went over very well. When it was announced that everybody's annual cross over team was picked out of a hat, people were underwhelmed with the Big Ten's scheduling strategy. Does anybody really think it's a good idea for Iowa and Rutgers to play every year.
Personally I don't care about getting the 2 best teams in the CCG but I would like to get rid of these goofy annual crossover games.
-
If the Big Ten does get rid of divisions, 2022 would probably be a good time to do it. By that time the Big Ten will have cycled through a full 6 year cycle where everybody had played each other at least twice.
Plus I don't believe the announced schedules for 2022-2025 went over very well. When it was announced that everybody's annual cross over team was picked out of a hat, people were underwhelmed with the Big Ten's scheduling strategy. Does anybody really think it's a good idea for Iowa and Rutgers to play every year.
Personally I don't care about getting the 2 best teams in the CCG but I would like to get rid of these goofy annual crossover games.
The guy who shoehorned them into the conference apparently does.
-
I was okay with the initial fixed crossovers, as they were at least based upon a modicum of logic.
The revamped ones are unimpressive.
-
I don't see it as NFL lite. I'm not suggesting fines for kids who wear their socks differently.
The problem with the NFL is that 12/32 teams get into the playoffs. The NBA is worse, and everybody knows it, because the playoffs wind up being an additional season tacked on at the end.
Getting a little socialist with the schedules would merely test the advantages of the helmet-type teams. The status quo in college football relies on an underclass of schools relegated to be the chum for the P5. Human history has taught us that underlings don't like their role and will rebel eventually.
The NHL is considering adding 2 single game wildcard games for the #7 and #8 seeds on each side, meaning 20 teams make the playoffs. Their argument is that the league has gone from 20 to 32 teams, but the playoffs have remained at 16. Rather than consider that they now have a more appropriate proportion of teams make the playoffs, their argument is expand the playoffs. If it were the NBA I wouldn't really care, because you almost never see 1-8 or 2-7 upsets, so it doesn't really matter who fills those slots, but the NHL playoffs are always wide open.
I remember when there was a real push back in like 2009 or 2010 to go to 96 or 128 for the NCAA basketball tourney, the coaches argued based on how many more teams there were now than when 64 was set, ignoring the fact that all of that expansion was on the bottom end, and there was no large expansion of the viable national championship conferences. Fortunately they settled on 68, and honestly I could live without those First Four games.
-
I was okay with the initial fixed crossovers, as they were at least based upon a modicum of logic.
The revamped ones are unimpressive.
Can you post a link to them please? I missed this.
-
Nba and Nhl only put about 50% of their teams into the playoffs. That's nuthin'
The CFL puts 2/3 of their league into the playoffs. Used to be 3/4 when Ottawa was between teams.
-
Can you post a link to them please? I missed this.
Post a link to what?
If you meant the original fixed crossovers, I have them committed to memory.
You'd have to extrapolate the new ones from the schedules, as I don't have a link handy.
-
Gotcha. I just looked and it's Ohio State for Wisconsin.
-
Yes it is. Also Nebraska-Michigan.
Don't know the rest. Indiana-Purdue, obviously.
-
https://www.google.com/amp/btn.com/2018/08/29/big-ten-releases-2022-2025-conference-football-schedules/amp/
Here’s a look at the fixed crossovers from 2022-2025
Pur-Indy
ILL-PSU
Iowa-Rut
NW-MD
Neb-Mich
Minn-MSU
Wisc-OSU
-
They shoulda gave PSU to Iowa.
-
Iowa has a pass for sure..
-
Jumping in late.... I'm for keeping divisions. I like them better. I'm mentioned my MSU proposal before. I would be ok with the BIG proposing rotations for divisions. Take the previous 5 years and rank the teams 1-14 based upon conference wins. Then make the divisions as even as possible and readjust in 5. I'd rather see something like that then no divisions and some breaking ties methodology for choosing the best 2.
-
I'd rather see something like that then no divisions and some breaking ties methodology for choosing the best 2.
I read this somewhere else...
The tie-breaking committee will be a blue ribbon panel consisting of the Michigan AD, the OSU AD, Jim Delany and the head of Fox Sports.
:72:
-
They shoulda gave PSU to Iowa.
They did under the good set of fixed crossovers that we currently are in the midst of a six year run of.
-
They did under the good set of fixed crossovers that we currently are in the midst of a six year run of.
I know. I meant MSU, but PSU came out instead. Then give PSU to NU.
I see what they did though. Iowa fans will pack the Rutger stadiette a few times.
-
I only liked the current ones because OSU drew Nebraska, I suppose.
If we can't have them, then I'd prefer to simply put the illibuck back on the annual.
The names out of a hat thing is just dumb.
-
just make the divisions large enough that there's no need for any cross overs
9-team divisions would be great. Round robin playing the other 8 teams, send the champ to the CCG
-
just make the divisions large enough that there's no need for any cross overs
9-team divisions would be great. Round robin playing the other 8 teams, send the champ to the CCG
I keep saying two 10 team divisions. One division of Illinois, Indiana, Iowa, Michigan, MSU, Minnesota, Northwestern, OSU, Purdue and Wisconsin; and one of Arizona, ASU, Cal, Oregon, OSU, Stanford, UCLA, USC, Washington and WSU. Then they could play their conference championship on New Years Day in Pasadena.
:86:
-
I'd like that with a 10-team conference from Texas to Nebraska
-
Only if Pacific, Long Beach and Fulerton can come back from the dead.
-
They shoulda gave PSU to Iowa.
Things are always changing but I would set up round 2 of the fixed crossovers like this:
OSU-Wisc (best teams in each division)
MSU-Iowa ( because NW got MSU last time)
PSU-Neb (brcause they are traditional powers)
Mich-NW ( because NW got MSU last time)
MD-ILL (because ILL got Rutgers last time)
Rut-Minn (because ILL got Rut last time and Minn has slid below NW and Iowa in the pecking order)
Indy-Pur (because they have to play each other)
-
Northwestern has Rutgers, not MSU. Illinois has MSU, not Rutgers.
-
Northwestern has Rutgers, not MSU. Illinois has MSU, not Rutgers.
Is that what you are proposing for fixed rivals????
-
Is that what you are proposing for fixed rivals????
No. Those are the current fixed rivals.
-
I don't think I mentioned this in my previous post, but I'm not in favor of getting rid of the divisions.
The rich would just continue to get rich while the bottom tier teams would continue to stay at the bottom.
Terrible recipe for college football. It's bad enough we have a playoff system that favors the rich getting richer.
-
Everybody gets a trophy!
-
I think a large portion of husker fans would have liked to have seen PSU instead of Michigan... due to having a history with that program.
-
OK. There are now 14 teams in the B1G. So you drop the divisions, move to a 13-game conference schedule, and play a full roundrobin. That solves all the problems doesn't it?
-
Everybody gets a trophy!
I take it you were talking about my post?
Because it's only the rich that would care to keep it that way.
-
The 'RICH' will always be richer...unless something major happens to upset the Status Quo.
The solution for this issue along with the playoff selections will come to a head with the next TV contracts. It may need be fully resolved at that point but EVENTUALLY...
I think there will likely be a POWER4 with the G5 left behind as an entity of their own. Then the 4 champions will always face each other in the playoff and that will be it.
For the B1G to expand to the 16, they have more difficulties to overcome than the other conferences. The current rules state that ANY expansion has to come from within the current footprint states OR states that border that footprint of states. Unless that changes; OU and Texas cannot join.
Also, there are fairly strict rules about academics that had to be 'worked around' already to get Nebraska in; and except from a Football viewpoint, Nebraska has been a more questionable addition than Rutgers! (I know most of us focus on football only on this board, but that's the reality!)
The Big 12 and SEC have no concern about borders or academics, just competition for eyeballs; so they will find it easier to accommodate any school that may want to merge.
The B1Gs best bets are Virginia and Missouri...but there is no good reason for them to leave their current conferences unless ALL the TV deals get re-done AND the other 4 work with the B1G to smooth things out. I'm not so sure that's likely at present!
-
Northwestern has Rutgers, not MSU. Illinois has MSU, not Rutgers.
You may want to double check your facts.
From 2016 to 2021, NW plays MSU every year and ILL plays Rutgers every year. The following are the fixed rivals from 2016 to 2021.
OSU-Neb
Mich-Wisc
PSU-Iowa
MSU-NW
MD-Minn
Rut-ILL
Indy-Purdue
-
OK. There are now 14 teams in the B1G. So you drop the divisions, move to a 13-game conference schedule, and play a full round robin. That solves all the problems doesn't it?
12 teams and 11 conference games would be even better, but I'm sure the TV networks would love your proposal above
that's a lot of quality content
-
The 'RICH' will always be richer...unless something major happens to upset the Status Quo.
The solution for this issue along with the playoff selections will come to a head with the next TV contracts. It may need be fully resolved at that point but EVENTUALLY...
I think there will likely be a POWER4 with the G5 left behind as an entity of their own. Then the 4 champions will always face each other in the playoff and that will be it.
For the B1G to expand to the 16, they have more difficulties to overcome than the other conferences. The current rules state that ANY expansion has to come from within the current footprint states OR states that border that footprint of states. Unless that changes; OU and Texas cannot join.
Also, there are fairly strict rules about academics that had to be 'worked around' already to get Nebraska in; and except from a Football viewpoint, Nebraska has been a more questionable addition than Rutgers! (I know most of us focus on football only on this board, but that's the reality!)
The Big 12 and SEC have no concern about borders or academics, just competition for eyeballs; so they will find it easier to accommodate any school that may want to merge.
The B1Gs best bets are Virginia and Missouri...but there is no good reason for them to leave their current conferences unless ALL the TV deals get re-done AND the other 4 work with the B1G to smooth things out. I'm not so sure that's likely at present!
as Nebraska has proven, all the rules can be changed when there's enough money involved
-
Maybe somebody mentioned this already but maybe this discussion by Delany to eliminate divisions is all a prelude to expansion to a 15th school. In which case, 2 divisions would not work anymore
With 15 teams, I am guessing you could go a schedule with 4 permanent rivals and 10 teams you play half the time. Another way to do this is have 3 divisions with 5 teams in each division.
-
Quote from: B1G41 (https://www.cfb51.com/index.php?topic=6967.msg93589#msg93589)
The 'RICH' will always be richer...unless something major happens to upset the Status Quo.
The solution for this issue along with the playoff selections will come to a head with the next TV contracts. It may need be fully resolved at that point but EVENTUALLY...
I think there will likely be a POWER4 with the G5 left behind as an entity of their own. Then the 4 champions will always face each other in the playoff and that will be it.
For the B1G to expand to the 16, they have more difficulties to overcome than the other conferences. The current rules state that ANY expansion has to come from within the current footprint states OR states that border that footprint of states. Unless that changes; OU and Texas cannot join.
Also, there are fairly strict rules about academics that had to be 'worked around' already to get Nebraska in; and except from a Football viewpoint, Nebraska has been a more questionable addition than Rutgers! (I know most of us focus on football only on this board, but that's the reality!)
The Big 12 and SEC have no concern about borders or academics, just competition for eyeballs; so they will find it easier to accommodate any school that may want to merge.
The B1Gs best bets are Virginia and Missouri...but there is no good reason for them to leave their current conferences unless ALL the TV deals get re-done AND the other 4 work with the B1G to smooth things out. I'm not so sure that's likely at present!
A lot of Dogma here that has since been proven inaccurate.
"ANY expansion has to come from within the current footprint states OR states that border that footprint of states."
Delany has flat out said they no longer adhere to the continuous footprint clause, and that the conference is out for the best fit program.
"strict rules about academics"
This has also been downgraded to a preference by Delany. The B1G wants the best fit for the conference. And that can mean a lot of things.
I've mentioned several times I think Missouri and Virginia Tech would be great additions.
I see Missouri having a lot in common with Nebraska, Iowa and Illinois making them a cultural fit. Missouri openly campaigned for access to the B1G, and if the athletic money approximately the same I really think Missouri would prefer to have access to the Academic Big Ten. And if B1G would put Missouri in the "West" They would prefer that to being in the SEC East.
Virginia Tech I would argue has more common with B1G than Virginia. And Culturally seems to come across alot like PSU, OSU and Maryland. UV has a Southern Cultural (I would call it a Southern M*ch*g*n, and nobody wants more UM around here.) VT has an Appalachian one. Both are large land grant Universities with a focus on Graduate Research. VT, has much shorter history with the ACC and only had UV and a couple of Big East transplants as rivals. UV has many more southern rivals. And if Football is the driving force (Hint: it is) VT's history and passion for the Hookies appears to far eclipse that of UV. Either school would be a fine addition I just think VT is a better one
All told the B1G is getting the biggest piece of Pie for the next 6 years.
"According to Wilner’s projections for 2018, distributions of more than $50 million would give the Big Ten a sizable revenue advantage over schools from the SEC (approximately $43 million each), the Big 12 ($36.5 million), the Pac-12 ($32 million) and the ACC ($28 million)."
-
I've mentioned several times I think Missouri and Virginia Tech would be great additions.
I'm not personally opposed to Mizzou but I think it is very unlikely for the foreseeable future. As you pointed out, they openly campaigned for a B1G invite recently and didn't get it. My hunch is that if we had any interest in adding Mizzou we would have added them when they were available and practically begging for an invite. It just wouldn't make sense to give them the cold shoulder in that situation (which we already did) then turn around a few years later and invite them to join. I think that two key factors are population of state and population growth. States currently in the B1G footprint ranked by population rank (in the US Census July 1, 2016 estimate):
- #5 Illinois, 12.8 Million, down ~30k since 2010
- #6 Pennsylvania, 12.8 Million, up ~80k since 2010
- #7 Ohio, 11.6 Million, up ~80k since 2010
- #10 Michigan, 9.9 Million, up ~40k since 2010 (Note, Michigan was still #8 right behind Ohio in the 2010 census but the Census Bureau now believes that both Georgia and North Carolina have passed Michigan. At current rates both of them will be close to Ohio in the 2020 census and pass Ohio in the 2030 census)
- #11 New Jersey, 8.9 Million, up ~150k since 2010
- #17 Indiana, 6.6 Million, up ~150k since 2010
- #19 Maryland, 6.0 Million, up ~240k since 2010
- #20 Wisconsin, 5.8 Million, up ~90k since 2010
- #22 Minnesota, 5.5 Million, up ~210k since 2010
- #30 Iowa, 3.1 Million, up ~90k since 2010
- #37 Nebraska, 1.9 Million, up ~80k since 2010
Note that all 11 states in the footprint are fairly slow growth. Now look at the options that get tossed around:
- #2 Texas, 27.9 Million, up ~ 2.8 Million since 2010
- #8 Georgia, 10.3 Million, up ~ 620k since 2010
- #9 North Carolina, 10.1 Million, up ~ 610k since 2010
- #12 Virginia, 8.4 Million, up ~ 410k since 2010
- #18 Missouri, 6.1 Million, up ~ 110k since 2010
- #28 Oklahoma, 3.9 Million, up ~ 170 since 2010
- #35 Kansas, 2.9 Million, up ~ 50k since 2010
- #38 West Virginia, 1.8 Million, down ~20k since 2010
IMHO, the above tables are why Mizzou didn't get an invite when they wanted one and why they probably will not get an invite in the foreseeable future. I also believe that the top four states that I listed (Texas, Georgia, North Carolina, and Virginia) are the states that will most likely provide our new members if and when we decide to expand. I continue to believe that UNC/UVA is the most likely long-term plan. That said, I do not believe that Oklahoma would get a stand-alone invite but if they were a package deal with UT-A, we'd jump on that.
A substantial portion of the total US population lives in the B1G footprint. Additionally, our slower relative growth has an interesting positive side-effect. A LOT of people have moved out of the B1G footprint over the past decades but some of them took their rooting interests with them so I believe that we have a VERY large "disapora" of B1G alums and fans living in the faster growing areas. The problem, as I see it, is that the shelf-life of that "disapora" is limited. If you or I move to NC we'll still be tOSU fans. Our kids might pick that up from us, but their kids are likely to be only vaguely cognizant of the fact that grandpa went to Ohio State.
On the subject of VaTech, until I went there for the Ohio State game there a few years ago I would have STRONGLY advocated for UVA over VaTech. Having been there I'd be ok with either and I agree with you that nobody wants another UM around here, ugh.
-
I am a little confused. The article states it would have been better if OSU and Mich played in the CCG. But they did play, just a week prior to that.
If you accept the idea that OSU, Mich, and PSU are the 3 best teams, they all did play each other, so what's the problem?
Spot on! Michigan needs to stop crying behind the scenes to Delaney and win the game when they play. We are nine game into the B10 CCG, and WHO is the only big mouth school from the B10 that has not made the trip to Indy-Michigan. They hired Jimmy Football, we don't need Jimmy TV Deal trying to assist. It does suck in the East with tOSU, PSU, MSU and M on the schedule, especially when it hits in Late October/November, but to me it is what makes the season so damn good.
-
I personally believe Missouri was going to be invited or was strongly considered. I think the BIG prefers their members to be less leaky... Missouri didn't just beg, they talked about it. BIG doesn't want the Big12 approach to decisions and Missouri was talking.
JMO
-
Doesn't Mizzou have some pretty severe issues with declining enrollment?
-
Yes. They have. The incidents that made the news a few years ago ended up discouraging applications. It is my understanding this discouragement is across the board and not isolated to one demographic.
-
I think that two key factors are population of state and population growth.
a third factor that could possibly become more important is TV viewer rating.
as revenue shifts from the "basic cable" number of subscribers (population) to number of "eyeballs watching" people willing to pay for the specific channel or game (viewers)
Viewer Ratings have long been important for advertisers (commercials), but will become increasingly important when revenue cannot be gained from those that are not watching.
this is an area that makes Nebraska more valuable than the 1.9 million population figure
-
a third factor that could possibly become more important is TV viewer rating.
as revenue shifts from the "basic cable" number of subscribers (population) to number of "eyeballs watching" people willing to pay for the specific channel or game (viewers)
Viewer Ratings have long been important for advertisers (commercials), but will become increasingly important when revenue cannot be gained from those that are not watching.
this is an area that makes Nebraska more valuable than the 1.9 million population figure
No doubt. That is obviously why the B1G invited Nebraska instead of Mizzou a few years ago. The state of Missouri has 3x the population but I am quite confident that the Cornhuskers have MANY more fans than the Tigers.
Another school where that comes into play is Oklahoma. The Sooners would not be competitive with Mizzou, UVA, VaTech, UNC, or NCST based on population but they probably have more fans than all of those schools combined.
One thing to keep in mind though is that the bigger money comes from research. Years ago research money mostly came from corporations. Now it mostly comes from the Federal Government. In that arena population matters because it leads to seats in the US HoR.
-
Missouri would have been handy as a potential bridge to get to Texas.
Although it would be almost certain the Big Ten would take Texas alone if Texas wanted to come by themselves, I would guess Texas would try to drag along as many neighbors as they could as part of the deal.
-
I like the Big Ten's identity as a northern league. I will be disappointed if they try to chase the population south.
-
Percentage of US Population living in what is now the B1G footprint over the last ~100 years:
| Population | 2016 est | 2010 | 2000 | 1990 | 1980 | 1970 | 1960 | 1950 | 1940 | 1930 | 1920 | 1920-2016 |
| Illinois | 3.97% | 4.18% | 4.41% | 4.60% | 5.04% | 5.46% | 5.64% | 5.78% | 5.98% | 6.22% | 6.12% | -2.15% |
| Pennsylvania | 3.96% | 4.14% | 4.36% | 4.78% | 5.24% | 5.80% | 6.33% | 6.97% | 7.49% | 7.84% | 8.22% | -4.26% |
| Ohio | 3.60% | 3.76% | 4.03% | 4.36% | 4.77% | 5.24% | 5.43% | 5.27% | 5.23% | 5.41% | 5.43% | -1.83% |
| Michigan | 3.08% | 3.22% | 3.53% | 3.74% | 4.09% | 4.36% | 4.38% | 4.26% | 3.98% | 3.94% | 3.46% | -0.38% |
| New Jersey | 2.77% | 2.87% | 2.99% | 3.11% | 3.25% | 3.52% | 3.40% | 3.23% | 3.15% | 3.29% | 2.98% | -0.20% |
| Indiana | 2.06% | 2.11% | 2.16% | 2.23% | 2.42% | 2.55% | 2.61% | 2.62% | 2.59% | 2.64% | 2.76% | -0.71% |
| Maryland | 1.87% | 1.88% | 1.88% | 1.92% | 1.86% | 1.93% | 1.74% | 1.58% | 1.38% | 1.33% | 1.37% | 0.50% |
| Wisconsin | 1.79% | 1.85% | 1.91% | 1.97% | 2.08% | 2.17% | 2.21% | 2.29% | 2.37% | 2.39% | 2.48% | -0.69% |
| Minnesota | 1.71% | 1.73% | 1.75% | 1.76% | 1.80% | 1.87% | 1.91% | 1.99% | 2.11% | 2.09% | 2.25% | -0.54% |
| Iowa | 0.97% | 0.99% | 1.04% | 1.12% | 1.29% | 1.39% | 1.54% | 1.74% | 1.92% | 2.01% | 2.27% | -1.30% |
| Nebraska | 0.59% | 0.60% | 0.61% | 0.63% | 0.69% | 0.73% | 0.79% | 0.88% | 1.00% | 1.12% | 1.22% | -0.63% |
| | | | | | | | | | | | |
| Total | 26.38% | 27.35% | 28.68% | 30.21% | 32.53% | 35.03% | 35.97% | 36.60% | 37.19% | 38.29% | 38.57% | -12.19% |
-
I continue to believe that UNC/UVA is the most likely long-term plan. That said, I do not believe that Oklahoma would get a stand-alone invite but if they were a package deal with UT-A, we'd jump on that.
A substantial portion of the total US population lives in the B1G footprint.
I also think UNC/UVA is Delany's top "legitimate" targets. (Unless Texas or ND falls into their lap.) However, I think the OU Brand is large enough to merit inclusion, even if the population and population growth are not hitting the right metrics. (Think Nebraska like.)
However, I just don't see UNC leaving, I think, they think, they ARE the ACC, and how the Tar Heels roll is how the ACC rolls. They are not thinking about how to get B1G Money; they are thinking how to bring the ACC up to B1G money status. I also think to a lessor extent UVA is similar in their mindset with UNC.
My family travels to Virginia and NC twice a year. Why down there I am know as the football guy, and conversation gravitates towards that. And while I don't think any of the people I'm talking to are insider type people I think it is a fair assessment of what several fans are thinking concerning those schools.
(1) UNC fans legitimately laugh at the notion of conference change, they won't even entertain the thought; in fact they go the other way and challenge that Penn State should join them, and Hate on Maryland.
(2)Duke and (3)Virginia fans strongly comment against any conference change involving their team, but seem more willing to concede someone may leave.
(4)NC State fans prefer the ACC, but if the conference breaks apart they are a strong lean towards the SEC.
(5)Wake Forest fans hope the ACC stays together because they are not confident they will have a safe landing spot.
Then there is (6)Virginia Tech, they think the Big Ten is a real good conference, and a step better than the SEC in everything except football. VT fans are hesitant to change conference more so because of the possibility of losing the rivalry with Virginia and being portrayed the "Bad Guys" like Maryland is.
So while all 6 schools fans (that I interact with) seem to prefer staying in their conference, it's the VT fans that seem less adamant against change. If the change is for Football they want the SEC, if it's for everything else they like the B1G. One adjunct professor I've interacted with even went so far to say VT is gunning for AAU status to make themselves a better possible candidate for the B1G.
Again, this is just family and friends bull sh!tting, but that is how my conversations go while down there, and of those 6 schools the least opposed seem to be VT. (I don't interact with GT fans, but I have heard "3rd hand" that they are not as opposed to change as well, but would prolly be a more SEC lean than B1G because of location.)
-
Honestly, the ACC is strong enough that the flagship schools won't be the first to bolt. Which means it's probably safe, because the B1G and the ACC aren't going to rush to grab the non-flagship schools.
I still think the B12 is the one that is ripe for the picking. That conference is Texas and Oklahoma. Everyone else is expendable.
- WVU isn't a good fit, geographically or otherwise. I think they'd join the B1G, ACC, or SEC in a heartbeat.
- Kansas has standalone value for basketball, but I think they'd be just as happy to join the B1G as be in the B12.
- KSU has a better football program than football, but isn't a marquee pickup. They'll jump anywhere more stable than the B12 that will take them.
- ISU/OkSU/TCU/Baylor/TTech are all teams that nobody will really care about if they don't get lost. So again, if any of them could find a better offer, I think they'd take it for more stability than the B12.
So this can go two ways.
First is that a conference like the B1G and/or ACC decides to start the move to 16 without waiting on Texas/OU. In that case, the first one to grab WVU/Kansas wins, or replace one of those schools with ND if they can manage it. That drops the B12 to 8 or 9, and everyone will start working on the exit strategy from there.
Second is if TX/OU smell blood in the water and decide to go to the SEC or the B1G together. Again, that leaves the rest of the B12 trying to find seats on the titanic. If the SEC gets TX/OU, I see the B1G taking WVU and Kansas, and the ACC making a HARD push to get ND and find a 16th school wherever they can.
Either way, I think the PAC then stays at 12 a while. I don't think they've got any viable an attractive prospects unless they got TX/OU, which they won't get.
-
Virginia Tech is in the middle of nowhere. It is hundreds of miles from any sort of major population center in that state. It is an awesome part of the country, but it's kind of funny that they are being bandied about as a place that adds any type of population to the Big Ten footprint. Rural parts of the Midwest have way more assholes per square foot than any part of western Virginia.
-
speak for yourself
-
Virginia Tech is in the middle of nowhere. It is hundreds of miles from any sort of major population center in that state. It is an awesome part of the country, but it's kind of funny that they are being bandied about as a place that adds any type of population to the Big Ten footprint. Rural parts of the Midwest have way more assholes per square foot than any part of western Virginia.
Maybe I'm in the minority... I'm sure in the room of big shots looking for TV eyeballs I am, but I'm more interested in grabbing schools that I think fit the B1G culturally than I am in adding media markets.
-
Virginia Tech is in the middle of nowhere. It is hundreds of miles from any sort of major population center in that state. It is an awesome part of the country, but it's kind of funny that they are being bandied about as a place that adds any type of population to the Big Ten footprint. Rural parts of the Midwest have way more assholes per square foot than any part of western Virginia.
'cept for the 300k people in metro Roanoke 40 miles up the road. (Where I visit family.) and the VT brand is definitely large enough to carry the entire State (8.5 Million.) ¯\_(ツ)_/¯
I also agree with @bwarbiany (https://www.cfb51.com/index.php?action=profile;u=19), and what Delany has publicly said (even though we know behind closed doors it's all about money) that the cultural fit it the Keystone of any expansion candidate. We would want a University that wants to be here. I think of the 6 Virginia/N. Carolina schools VT is the best fit.
-
Yeah, if we have to go south they are fine. Not a bad road trip for OSU, only a short drive across WV.
-
Maybe I'm in the minority... I'm sure in the room of big shots looking for TV eyeballs I am, but I'm more interested in grabbing schools that I think fit the B1G culturally than I am in adding media markets.
seems to me if you do the right things, for the right reasons, the money will eventually be there
the Big Ten conference is a shining example of this
TV networks are NOT
-
Honestly, the ACC is strong enough that the flagship schools won't be the first to bolt. Which means it's probably safe, because the B1G and the ACC aren't going to rush to grab the non-flagship schools.
I still think the B12 is the one that is ripe for the picking. That conference is Texas and Oklahoma. Everyone else is expendable.
- WVU isn't a good fit, geographically or otherwise. I think they'd join the B1G, ACC, or SEC in a heartbeat.
- Kansas has standalone value for basketball, but I think they'd be just as happy to join the B1G as be in the B12.
- KSU has a better football program than football, but isn't a marquee pickup. They'll jump anywhere more stable than the B12 that will take them.
- ISU/OkSU/TCU/Baylor/TTech are all teams that nobody will really care about if they don't get lost. So again, if any of them could find a better offer, I think they'd take it for more stability than the B12.
So this can go two ways.
First is that a conference like the B1G and/or ACC decides to start the move to 16 without waiting on Texas/OU. In that case, the first one to grab WVU/Kansas wins, or replace one of those schools with ND if they can manage it. That drops the B12 to 8 or 9, and everyone will start working on the exit strategy from there.
Second is if TX/OU smell blood in the water and decide to go to the SEC or the B1G together. Again, that leaves the rest of the B12 trying to find seats on the titanic. If the SEC gets TX/OU, I see the B1G taking WVU and Kansas, and the ACC making a HARD push to get ND and find a 16th school wherever they can.
Either way, I think the PAC then stays at 12 a while. I don't think they've got any viable an attractive prospects unless they got TX/OU, which they won't get.
There is a lot in here that I do not agree with:
First is the possibility of WVU to the B1G. IMHO, never going to happen. For one thing, West Virginia is a small population state (#38, right behind our current smallest, Nebraska with 1.8 Million and with low or negative growth. Second, WVU is not up to the academic standards that the conference would like to see. Finally, unlike Nebraska or Oklahoma, they don't have a humongous national "helmet" following. I just can't see the advantage of adding West Virginia.
Second, Kansas: I think that the possibility of Kansas to the B1G is almost as unlikely as WVU. Kansas is only marginally more populous (#35 with 2.9 Million and low growth). I know nothing of Kansas' academics even if they are stellar I don't see that and great basketball being enough to make up for low population and terrible football.
Third, Notre Dame: I think the ND to the B1G ship sailed a long time ago and it isn't coming back. They obviously have a huge national football following but I continue to believe that as our country becomes progressively less religious Notre Dame's football following will necessarily decline. Back in the 1950's nearly everyone in the US was at least nominally christian so the major divide was between the majority Protestants and the minority Catholics. Minorities in any setting tend to stick together so it is no surprise that the minority Catholics stuck together and pretty much all rooted for the National Catholic School, Notre Dame.
Back then there was also a MUCH larger chasm between Catholics and Protestants. The Catholic hierarchy and many everyday Catholics still saw Protestants as godless heathens while many protestants still saw Catholics as Papal Idoltarists (sp?). The world has changed. Nearly all Catholics and Protestants today simply see each other as fellow Christians. This lack of differentiation means that Catholics are less likely to be Notre Dame fans such that going forward I think that their national following will decline.
The other issue with Notre Dame is that their academics aren't even in the B1G's universe. I've been flat laughed at by Notre Dame fans when I say that because they look at undergrad rankings. Per USNR (https://www.usnews.com/best-colleges/rankings/national-universities), Notre Dame is the nations #18 school and the only B1G schools they are behind are #10 Northwestern and #3 Chicago (most people not on this forum would never consider Chicago anyway). In the USNR rankings, the rest of the B1G schools are #27 Michigan, #46 Illinois, #49 Wisconsin, #56 Ohio State, #56 Purdue, #56 Rutgers, #59 Penn State, #63 Maryland, #76 Minnesota, #85 Michigan State, #89 Indiana, #89 Iowa, and #129 Nebraska.
Looking at undergraduate academics and using the USNR rankings as a proxy, adding Notre Dame would be a HUGE improvement to the B1G's academics as they would be the #2 or #3 school in the league (depending on whether or not you count Chicago). The thing is that the academic alliance of the B1G has almost nothing to do with undergraduate academics. It is all about graduate programs and specifically research. On that front Notre Dame would be last in the B1G and it isn't even close.
Here are the top research budgets from a site I found on a quick google (https://ncsesdata.nsf.gov/profiles/site?method=rankingBySource&ds=herd) search along with all B1G member and some of the potential additions we have discussed:
- #1 Johns Hopkins - quasi member
- #2 Michigan, member
- #3 UC-San Francisco
- #4 Penn
- #5 Washington
- #6 Wisconsin, member
- #7 UCSD
- #8 Duke
- #9 Harvard
- #10 Stanford
- #11 UNC
- #12 UCLA
- #13 Cornell
- #14 MIT
- #15 Yale
- #16 Pitt
- #17 Minnesota, member
- #18 NYU
- #19 aTm
- #20 Columbia
- #21 UT-M.D. Anderson Cancer Center (as I understand it this is somewhat part of UT-A, but not really?)
- #22 Ohio State, member
- #23 Penn State, member
- #24 GaTech
- #25 Florida
- #29 Northwestern
- #32 Michigan State
- #33 Rutgers
- #35 Texas
- #36 Illinois
- #37 Purdue
- #43 Maryland
- #45 Indiana
- #46 VaTech
- #49 Iowa
- #51 Virginia
- #55 Chicago
- #77 Nebraska
- #78 Kansas
- #84 Oklahoma
- #90 Mizzou
- #101 Notre Dame
- #117 West Virginia
- #132 Syracuse
-
A couple things about the chart above:
First, Johns Hopkins is WAY ahead of everybody else. The gap between #1 Johns Hopkins and #2 Michigan is about the same size as the gap between #2 Michigan and #45 Indiana.
Second, if you combine #21 and #35 (which I think would be the appropriate comparison if considering adding UT-Austin) that combined entity would be competing with Michigan and UCSF for #2.
Texas is absolutely the #1 potential prize available out there:
- Major research dollars.
- Huge population State with good growth.
- Very good all-around academics.
- Football "helmet" with a huge following.
- Very good all-around athletics.
No other plausible addition even comes close to that.
If the B1G (or anybody else) can get Texas, they'll take them and we'd take Oklahoma to get them if it was a package deal.
The single most important question in all the conference re-alignment discussions is this:
- Assuming the B12 disintegrates, what will Texas do?
That is the most important question because Texas would clearly be the top expansion target for any of the other four major leagues. The SEC, ACC, B1G, or PAC would take the Longhorns in a heartbeat. Everything else comes after that and is just a matter of schools looking for soft landings and conferences chasing scraps.
-
@utee94 (https://www.cfb51.com/index.php?action=profile;u=15) , can you comment on that #21/#35 thing listed above?
-
Hey medina, yes you've got it correct.
Many (most?) universities include all branches of their entire system in these kinds of numbers. Texas breaks them out. To make the appropriate comparison to most other universities, you'd have to combine #21 and #35 on this list. It's one of the many reasons why these lists and rankings should always be taken with a grain of salt.
There is a TON of Michael Dell money behind MD Anderson, which is his largest way of contributing to UT.
-
The more I think about it, the more I like this idea of getting rid of divisions and have the 2 best teams play in the CCG.
There are so many intersting scheduling options that could be considered without divisions. A new scheduling idea I just thought of, each team would play
4 teams that are full rivals (teams you play every year)
2 teams that are 3/4 rivals (teams you play 3 out of 4 years)
7 teams that are 1/2 rivals (teams you play 2 out of 4 years)
-
The more I think about it, the more I like this idea of getting rid of divisions and have the 2 best teams play in the CCG.
There are so many intersting scheduling options that could be be considered. A new scheduling idea I just thought of, each team would play
4 teams that are full rivals (teams you play every year)
2 teams that are 3/4 rivals (teams you play 3 out of 4 years)
7 teams that are 1/2 rivals (teams you play 2 out of 4 years)
I think I would really like this set-up. It works with 14 teams and nine games:
- 4 teams every year = 8 games every two years
- 2 teams 3/4 years = 3 games every two years
- 7 teams every other year = 7 games every two years=
- Total 13 other teams, 18 games every two years = 9 games per year
I will say that I think setting up all of the full and 3/4 rivals would get a little tricky and I'm sure some people wouldn't like some of the results but overall I think it would be great.
I would be in favor of some unconventional tiebreakers in the event of a 3-way tie for first and/or a two-way tie for second.
-
| Team | Full | Full | Full | Full | 3/4 | 3/4 |
| Rutgers | Penn State | Maryland | Ohio State | Indiana | Purdue | Michigan State |
| Maryland | Penn State | Rutgers | Michigan State | Northwestern | Ohio State | Illinois |
| Penn State | Ohio State | Maryland | Rutgers | Nebraska | Michigan | Minnesota |
| Ohio State | Michigan | Penn State | Illinois | Rutgers | Nebraska | Maryland |
| Michigan | Ohio State | Michigan State | Minnesota | Purdue | Nebraska | Penn State |
| Michigan State | Michigan | Iowa | Wisconsin | Maryland | Rutgers | Northwestern |
| Indiana | Purdue | Illinois | Northwestern | Rutgers | Wisconsin | Iowa |
| Purdue | Indiana | Illinois | Northwestern | Michigan | Rutgers | Minnesota |
| Illinois | Northwestern | Indiana | Purdue | Ohio State | Maryland | Iowa |
| Northwestern | Illinois | Indiana | Purdue | Maryland | Michigan State | Wisconsin |
| Wisconsin | Nebraska | Iowa | Minnesota | Michigan State | Indiana | Northwestern |
| Minnesota | Nebraska | Iowa | Wisconsin | Michigan | Penn State | Purdue |
| Iowa | Nebraska | Minnesota | Wisconsin | Michigan State | Illinois | Indiana |
| Nebraska | Iowa | Minnesota | Wisconsin | Penn State | Ohio State | Michigan |
-
All the hoops and machinations simply because conferences became too large.
-
utee... correct. I blame Texas. :88:
I think you need divisions so you don't have a championship game a week after playing the same game. What I'd like to see instead is maybe a reset of the divisions every 5 years based upon the previous 5 years win %. Balance it out. I like that idea better than eliminating them.
Ideally, I still think moving MSU to the West and moving Ill to the east adds balance, promotes the idea that 2 schools in the same state play in different divisions, allows for cross over rivals and adds balance. Minor tweak makes more sense to me.
-
Big Ten
Illinois
Indiana
Iowa
Michigan
Michigan State
Minnesota
Nebraska
Northwestern
Ohio State
Purdue
Wisconsin
Big 12
Arkansas
Colorado
Iowa State
Kansas
Kansas State
Missouri
Oklahoma
Oklahoma State
Texas
Texas A&M
Texas Tech
Pac 11
Arizona
Arizona State
California
Oregon
Oregon State
Southern California
Stanford
UCLA
Utah
Washington
Washington State
SEC
Alabama
Auburn
Florida
Georgia
Kentucky
Louisiana State
Mississippi
Mississippi State
South Carolina
Tennessee
Vanderbilt
ACC
Central Florida
Clemson
Connecticut
Duke
Florida State
Georgia Tech
Maryland
North Carolina
NC State
Virginia
Wake Forest
Big East
Boston College
Cincinnati
Louisville
Miami
Notre Dame
Penn State
Pittsburgh
Rutgers
Syracuse
Virginia Tech
West Virginia
6 power conferences playing a full round robin (10 games), with 3 OOC games against only other power conference schools. No CCG. Conference winners are in the playoff, along with 2 at large members. All are seeded by playoff committee rankings. TV loves it.
-
A couple things about the chart above:
First, Johns Hopkins is WAY ahead of everybody else. The gap between #1 Johns Hopkins and #2 Michigan is about the same size as the gap between #2 Michigan and #45 Indiana.
Second, if you combine #21 and #35 (which I think would be the appropriate comparison if considering adding UT-Austin) that combined entity would be competing with Michigan and UCSF for #2.
Texas is absolutely the #1 potential prize available out there:
- Major research dollars.
- Huge population State with good growth.
- Very good all-around academics.
- Football "helmet" with a huge following.
- Very good all-around athletics.
No other plausible addition even comes close to that.
If the B1G (or anybody else) can get Texas, they'll take them and we'd take Oklahoma to get them if it was a package deal.
The single most important question in all the conference re-alignment discussions is this:
- Assuming the B12 disintegrates, what will Texas do?
That is the most important question because Texas would clearly be the top expansion target for any of the other four major leagues. The SEC, ACC, B1G, or PAC would take the Longhorns in a heartbeat. Everything else comes after that and is just a matter of schools looking for soft landings and conferences chasing scraps.
All these pluses combined with UT's ego makes me think they wouldn't go rushing anywhere. They'd be an independent, like FSU, Miami, and Penn State used to be. They'd be the new ND. They'd sign a fat TV deal with youtube or Netflix, keep all that money, and be perfectly fine doing so.
-
All these pluses combined with UT's ego makes me think they wouldn't go rushing anywhere. They'd be an independent, like FSU, Miami, and Penn State used to be. They'd be the new ND. They'd sign a fat TV deal with youtube or Netflix, keep all that money, and be perfectly fine doing so.
Eh, I'm not so sure that works all that well even for Notre Dame and I think less so for anyone else, even Texas. Some reasons:
- I think it is really tough to make the CFP as an independent. Notre Dame did it this year by going undefeated but I feel that if they had lost even one game they'd have been out.
- The conference is a financial safety-net. When Ohio State has a bad year in football and nobody watches the Buckeyes and they don't get bowl revenue Ohio State still gets their share of the B1G money.
- I think it is getting harder to be an independent because there are less of them. That makes scheduling difficult not just in football but in all the other sports as well.
- No conference means no conference titles, ever, in any sport.
In the long-run, I think they'll be in a conference I just can't guess which one.
-
6 power conferences playing a full round robin (10 games), with 3 OOC games against only other power conference schools. No CCG. Conference winners are in the playoff, along with 2 at large members. All are seeded by playoff committee rankings. TV loves it.
and better yet...... I love it
-
| Team | Full | Full | Full | Full | 3/4 | 3/4 |
| Rutgers | Penn State | Maryland | Ohio State | Indiana | Purdue | Michigan State |
| Maryland | Penn State | Rutgers | Michigan State | Northwestern | Ohio State | Illinois |
| Penn State | Ohio State | Maryland | Rutgers | Nebraska | Michigan | Minnesota |
| Ohio State | Michigan | Penn State | Illinois | Rutgers | Nebraska | Maryland |
| Michigan | Ohio State | Michigan State | Minnesota | Purdue | Nebraska | Penn State |
| Michigan State | Michigan | Iowa | Wisconsin | Maryland | Rutgers | Northwestern |
| Indiana | Purdue | Illinois | Northwestern | Rutgers | Wisconsin | Iowa |
| Purdue | Indiana | Illinois | Northwestern | Michigan | Rutgers | Minnesota |
| Illinois | Northwestern | Indiana | Purdue | Ohio State | Maryland | Iowa |
| Northwestern | Illinois | Indiana | Purdue | Maryland | Michigan State | Wisconsin |
| Wisconsin | Nebraska | Iowa | Minnesota | Michigan State | Indiana | Northwestern |
| Minnesota | Nebraska | Iowa | Wisconsin | Michigan | Penn State | Purdue |
| Iowa | Nebraska | Minnesota | Wisconsin | Michigan State | Illinois | Indiana |
| Nebraska | Iowa | Minnesota | Wisconsin | Penn State | Ohio State | Michigan |
That's a good list. I might suggest just a few tweaks.
I can see NW wanting to have Iowa as a full rival instead of Indy. I can see Iowa playing along with that, and take NW as a full rival too instead of MSU.
MSU and Indy should be full rivals instead.
-
Eh, I'm not so sure that works all that well even for Notre Dame and I think less so for anyone else, even Texas. Some reasons:
- I think it is really tough to make the CFP as an independent. Notre Dame did it this year by going undefeated but I feel that if they had lost even one game they'd have been out.
- The conference is a financial safety-net. When Ohio State has a bad year in football and nobody watches the Buckeyes and they don't get bowl revenue Ohio State still gets their share of the B1G money.
- I think it is getting harder to be an independent because there are less of them. That makes scheduling difficult not just in football but in all the other sports as well.
- No conference means no conference titles, ever, in any sport.
In the long-run, I think they'll be in a conference I just can't guess which one.
Agree with all your points, and especially the final two. There's a reason schools are moving FROM independence, to conference affiliation. Notre Dame is a rare exception, and Texas ain't Notre Dame.
Scheduling for football only would be tough enough, just imagine how complex it would be for the non-revenue sports that play much longer schedules. Notre Dame has "parked" its non-revenue sports in the ACC, but the analogous conference for Texas to park its non-revenue sports would be... the Big XII. Which probably wouldn't exist without Texas, so then the next best is some G5? If you think Texas is arrogant, can you imagine the howling from the billionaire boosters if UT baseball, volleyball, and basketball aren't competing on the P5 level? Red McCombs donates millions annually to the UT softball team, there's no way he wants to see them in the AAC or similar. And Red McCombs is one of the very biggest of the big cigars at Texas.
If football ever decoupled from the other sports at a national level with respect to conference affiliation, then it might be possible for Texas (and others) to make more moves. Without that, the entirely of the rest of the sports are always going to be a factor. And a regional conference makes the most sense for those sports.
Texas is in the B12 because it makes the most sense. I don't anticipate this changing even with the next round of conference broadcast rights negotiation. If OU decided to bail then I think Texas would have to consider a change, if not then I expect both schools to sit tight, right where they are.
-
6 power conferences playing a full round robin (10 games), with 3 OOC games against only other power conference schools. No CCG. Conference winners are in the playoff, along with 2 at large members. All are seeded by playoff committee rankings. TV loves it.
I don't necessarily disagree with this in theory, but I see no reason to discuss it because it is completely outside the realm of possibility at least for the foreseeable future. Nobody is going to voluntarily leave the B1G and we aren't kicking anyone out anytime soon so why bother discussing it?
Expansion, on the other hand, does seem to be reasonably likely at some point in the future. I've always thought that 14 made no sense. My thoughts:
- With nine (like the old ACC) you can play everyone on an eight-game schedule.
- With ten you can play everyone on a nine-game schedule.
- With 12 you can play all of your division (six teams, five games) and half of the other division on an eight-game schedule or more than half of the other division on a nine-game schedule.
- With sixteen you can go to the Pod system to keep from losing touch with non-divisional conference-mates.
All of those things seem better to me than this goofy 14 team thing where you play the other six in your division every year then play the seven non-divisional teams occasionally.
-
What we have now absolutely sucks. While it is good that the West contains mostly long-standing members, it means that "we" only get to see the other long-standing members on a rotational basis. I can't complain too much as a Badger fan, because they got M for 6 years and then OSU for 6 years. Hopefully there will be a major change after 2025.
-
why bother discussing any realignment of eliminating divisions?
we have absolutely no control or input into the decision
what is going to happen is going to happen - just like our current situation that sucks balls
-
why bother discussing any realignment of eliminating divisions?
we have absolutely no control or input into the decision
What, you don't think Jim Delaney takes his marching orders from this board?
-
I think he'd get better input if he did
but, sadly, no
-
I posted this in a different thread, makes more sense here.
What if the CFP only released a Top 6 (instead of 25) and those 6 were the 5 conference champs and 1 at large?
I would assert the fundamentally, and practically nothing changes from the current format, but it gives the appearance that championships matter.
-
I posted this in a different thread, makes more sense here.
What if the CFP only released a Top 6 (instead of 25) and those 6 were the 5 conference champs and 1 at large?
I would assert the fundamentally, and practically nothing changes from the current format, but it gives the appearance that championships matter.
It wouldn't change anything except that it would look ridiculous. This year could have been a great example. All of us who know and love this game know that s&*t happens. Weird upsets happen. This year a 7-5 Pittsburgh team and an 8-4 Northwestern team both made it to their respective CG's. Suppose for a minute that they had both won. It could have happened.
Northwestern:
- Lost by two TD's at home to a bad Dook team that finished 3-5 in a weak ACC and 7-5 overall,
- Lost at home to a REALLY BAD Akron team that finished 2-6 in the MAC, 4-8 overall, and fired their coach.
Pittsburgh:
- Got flat out annihilated at home by Penn State,
- Lost to UNC in what was UNC's only conference win of the year,
- Got flat out annihilated by UCF,
- Lost badly to a Miami team that finished .500 in the weak ACC and barely over .500 overall.
If either or both of those teams had managed to upset the Buckeyes or Tigers they still would have been mediocre teams, just mediocre teams with a great win (like Purdue, Auburn, California, etc).
It isn't a dichotomy where Championships are either the end-all/be-all or they don't matter at all. I agree with you that Championships matter. I think that they should. That said, I don't think winning a weak division (NU/Pitt) and pulling off one upset makes you a playoff caliber team.
-
With Notre Dame getting blown out in the playoffs, it got me thinking how ND really should have played Clemson in the ACC title game instead. Which got me thinking what kind of rules you would need to get Notre Dame to join the ACC, which got me thinking what kind of rules should all conferences have if they want to have division-less conferences and still have a CCG.
So these are the rules I came up with if a conference wants to have a CCG without divisions.
1. Conference must have a minimum of 10 members
2. Every member must play a minimum of 6 conference games each year. (The Big Ten would require 9 conference games)
3. Every member must play every other member at least once every 3 years. (The Big Ten would probably set it up so that everybody plays everybody at least twice in 4 years.)
4. The conference will decide which 2 teams go to the CCG. (The Big Ten would probably select the 2 teams with the 2 best conference records)
With these rules in place, I could see Notre Dame agreeing to join the ACC in football. The ACC would still require all other members to play 8 conference games, but Notre Dame would get an exception and only have to play 6 conference games. The ACC would probably have to pick its top 2 teams based on CFP rankings.
-
I'd be in favor of eliminating multiplications as well.