(02-26-2013 02:00 PM)He1nousOne Wrote:  

(02-26-2013 01:51 PM)bitcruncher Wrote:  Easy wins will be much harder to come by...

The Big Ten is adding Maryland and Rutgers already, if they add Virginia, UNC, Duke, GT, FSU and one more then that is not exactly a line up that is going to step in and annihilate the Big Ten across the board. FSU will definitely provide stout competition. The rest, equal competition to their counterparts in the Big Ten but the top teams in the Big Ten will beat them more often than lose.

In the SEC if they take as I stated, not saying that they will but just that they could, then how do TCU, WVU, Louisville, NC State, Virginia Tech and either Clemson or Miami throw the SEC hierarchy into disarray? If anything the strongest teams will have even stronger SoS's and equivalent records to what they have now.

Two losses in these leagues will not be looked down upon in comparison to some undefeated teams from lesser leagues.

It all comes down to the scheduling. Some years it will be tough, some years it won't be. Just speculating though, it will be interesting to see how it all pans out.

The B1G may come to regret adding Rutgers. IMO that's a program that could very well take off in the B1G. There's a good bit of talent in New Jersey, and if Rutgers can keep the top recruits in the state from going to other programs now that they're in a top level conference, it's going to make them a much better program...

I know a lot of B1G programs with New Jersey players on their roster. IMO those kids will be much harder to come by in the future. The majority may decide to stay home and go to Rutgers. They won't get a better education elsewhere, and the won't get more exposure elsewhere now either...

(02-26-2013 02:09 PM)bitcruncher Wrote:  

(02-26-2013 02:00 PM)He1nousOne Wrote:  

(02-26-2013 01:51 PM)bitcruncher Wrote:  Easy wins will be much harder to come by...

The Big Ten is adding Maryland and Rutgers already, if they add Virginia, UNC, Duke, GT, FSU and one more then that is not exactly a line up that is going to step in and annihilate the Big Ten across the board. FSU will definitely provide stout competition. The rest, equal competition to their counterparts in the Big Ten but the top teams in the Big Ten will beat them more often than lose.

In the SEC if they take as I stated, not saying that they will but just that they could, then how do TCU, WVU, Louisville, NC State, Virginia Tech and either Clemson or Miami throw the SEC hierarchy into disarray? If anything the strongest teams will have even stronger SoS's and equivalent records to what they have now.

Two losses in these leagues will not be looked down upon in comparison to some undefeated teams from lesser leagues.

It all comes down to the scheduling. Some years it will be tough, some years it won't be. Just speculating though, it will be interesting to see how it all pans out.

The B1G may come to regret adding Rutgers. IMO that's a program that could very well take off in the B1G. There's a good bit of talent in New Jersey, and if Rutgers can keep the top recruits in the state from going to other programs now that they're in a top level conference, it's going to make them a much better program...

I know a lot of B1G programs with New Jersey players on their roster. IMO those kids will be much harder to come by in the future. The majority may decide to stay home and go to Rutgers. They won't get a better education elsewhere, and the won't get more exposure elsewhere now either...

Yeah, you could be right about Rutgers. It is like the perfect storm for them right now. They just put together a great team so there will be hype about them within the state. Mix that hype with the hype of moving up to the Big Ten and Rutgers is taking a massive leap in their ability to maintain New Jersey kids. They will also be able to increase their recruiting in surrounding states as well.

They should be Very thankful for what Notre Dame did. If Notre Dame did not move to the ACC AND sign a contract with the ACC that gives the ACC some power of scheduling Notre Dame then I do not think Delany would have been moved to expand as soon as he did and he probably wouldn't have invited Rutgers.

If there is any truth to how strong the talks are between the conference and Virginia then I think that would be because there had been talks for quite some time. Maybe a move of Maryland and Virginia first to then be followed by UNC and Duke or GT to get to 16 and stop.

(02-26-2013 02:16 PM)He1nousOne Wrote:  

(02-26-2013 02:09 PM)bitcruncher Wrote:  

(02-26-2013 02:00 PM)He1nousOne Wrote:  

(02-26-2013 01:51 PM)bitcruncher Wrote:  Easy wins will be much harder to come by...

The Big Ten is adding Maryland and Rutgers already, if they add Virginia, UNC, Duke, GT, FSU and one more then that is not exactly a line up that is going to step in and annihilate the Big Ten across the board. FSU will definitely provide stout competition. The rest, equal competition to their counterparts in the Big Ten but the top teams in the Big Ten will beat them more often than lose.

In the SEC if they take as I stated, not saying that they will but just that they could, then how do TCU, WVU, Louisville, NC State, Virginia Tech and either Clemson or Miami throw the SEC hierarchy into disarray? If anything the strongest teams will have even stronger SoS's and equivalent records to what they have now.

Two losses in these leagues will not be looked down upon in comparison to some undefeated teams from lesser leagues.

It all comes down to the scheduling. Some years it will be tough, some years it won't be. Just speculating though, it will be interesting to see how it all pans out.

The B1G may come to regret adding Rutgers. IMO that's a program that could very well take off in the B1G. There's a good bit of talent in New Jersey, and if Rutgers can keep the top recruits in the state from going to other programs now that they're in a top level conference, it's going to make them a much better program...

I know a lot of B1G programs with New Jersey players on their roster. IMO those kids will be much harder to come by in the future. The majority may decide to stay home and go to Rutgers. They won't get a better education elsewhere, and the won't get more exposure elsewhere now either...

Yeah, you could be right about Rutgers. It is like the perfect storm for them right now. They just put together a great team so there will be hype about them within the state. Mix that hype with the hype of moving up to the Big Ten and Rutgers is taking a massive leap in their ability to maintain New Jersey kids. They will also be able to increase their recruiting in surrounding states as well.

They should be Very thankful for what Notre Dame did. If Notre Dame did not move to the ACC AND sign a contract with the ACC that gives the ACC some power of scheduling Notre Dame then I do not think Delany would have been moved to expand as soon as he did and he probably wouldn't have invited Rutgers.

If there is any truth to how strong the talks are between the conference and Virginia then I think that would be because there had been talks for quite some time. Maybe a move of Maryland and Virginia first to then be followed by UNC and Duke or GT to get to 16 and stop.

Penn State being under the NCAA hammer helps a good bit too. By the time they come out from under their current recruiting restrictions, Rutgers may have surpassed them as the top choice for good recruits in the east...

(02-26-2013 02:19 PM)bitcruncher Wrote:  

(02-26-2013 02:16 PM)He1nousOne Wrote:  

(02-26-2013 02:09 PM)bitcruncher Wrote:  

(02-26-2013 02:00 PM)He1nousOne Wrote:  

(02-26-2013 01:51 PM)bitcruncher Wrote:  Easy wins will be much harder to come by...

The Big Ten is adding Maryland and Rutgers already, if they add Virginia, UNC, Duke, GT, FSU and one more then that is not exactly a line up that is going to step in and annihilate the Big Ten across the board. FSU will definitely provide stout competition. The rest, equal competition to their counterparts in the Big Ten but the top teams in the Big Ten will beat them more often than lose.

In the SEC if they take as I stated, not saying that they will but just that they could, then how do TCU, WVU, Louisville, NC State, Virginia Tech and either Clemson or Miami throw the SEC hierarchy into disarray? If anything the strongest teams will have even stronger SoS's and equivalent records to what they have now.

Two losses in these leagues will not be looked down upon in comparison to some undefeated teams from lesser leagues.

It all comes down to the scheduling. Some years it will be tough, some years it won't be. Just speculating though, it will be interesting to see how it all pans out.

The B1G may come to regret adding Rutgers. IMO that's a program that could very well take off in the B1G. There's a good bit of talent in New Jersey, and if Rutgers can keep the top recruits in the state from going to other programs now that they're in a top level conference, it's going to make them a much better program...

I know a lot of B1G programs with New Jersey players on their roster. IMO those kids will be much harder to come by in the future. The majority may decide to stay home and go to Rutgers. They won't get a better education elsewhere, and the won't get more exposure elsewhere now either...

Yeah, you could be right about Rutgers. It is like the perfect storm for them right now. They just put together a great team so there will be hype about them within the state. Mix that hype with the hype of moving up to the Big Ten and Rutgers is taking a massive leap in their ability to maintain New Jersey kids. They will also be able to increase their recruiting in surrounding states as well.

They should be Very thankful for what Notre Dame did. If Notre Dame did not move to the ACC AND sign a contract with the ACC that gives the ACC some power of scheduling Notre Dame then I do not think Delany would have been moved to expand as soon as he did and he probably wouldn't have invited Rutgers.

If there is any truth to how strong the talks are between the conference and Virginia then I think that would be because there had been talks for quite some time. Maybe a move of Maryland and Virginia first to then be followed by UNC and Duke or GT to get to 16 and stop.

Penn State being under the NCAA hammer helps a good bit too. By the time they come out from under their current recruiting restrictions, Rutgers may have surpassed them as the top choice for good recruits in the east...

I'm actually very happy for Penn State in that regard because they finally have some true rivals in the Big Ten. They deserve to have to struggle to get back to dominance, but at least they will be doing so against some true rivals.

(02-26-2013 01:23 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(02-26-2013 01:20 PM)curtis0620 Wrote:  

(02-26-2013 01:16 PM)bitcruncher Wrote:  

(02-26-2013 12:45 PM)He1nousOne Wrote:  

(02-26-2013 12:43 PM)bitcruncher Wrote:  If we move to 3 major conferences, a lot of big name programs will move down the ladder...

Such as?

I thought you'd be smart enough to figure that out for yourself...

It would be the teams that start losing more games as a result of having to play teams better than themselves, instead of the patsies they line up every year...

so half of the SEC.

No, it is more like the bottom third every conference has. Besides the bottom 1/3 of the SEC has to play the top 2/3 every year. It is more like the majority of the PAC, over half of the Big 10, and 2/3 of the ACC.

You're absolutely right that it's not limited to the SEC, but I do think that where the potential for adverse impact occurs is actually more in the middle/upper-middle tiers of conferences. While they may not like it, I do think that fans of schools that are consistently in the bottom 1/3rd of a conference are aware of their place, and have expectations that are largely in line with that. Where you could see brand erosion is just below the top dogs, where expanding conference schedules loaded with quality teams could impact the records for teams that have typically had 3-4 out-of-conference wins bolster their overall records.

Fans of schools that consistently hang around the 8 to 10 win range, with occasional forays into 11 or 12 win territory, may start to more consistently be in the 6-8 win range. While it's great to be able to say that you're losing to the likes of say Alabama or LSU when you do lose, in the end those losses do have an impact on perception of a program. There aren't that many home games a year, and if fans are used to going home happy after most of them start having more bad weekends, it can impact fan engagement. Not that it hasn't been happening already, but it'd probably increase the "arms race" of facility additions and enhancements and increase the pace of coaching turnover as schools struggle to avoid falling back.

(02-26-2013 02:30 PM)BewareThePhog Wrote:  

(02-26-2013 01:23 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(02-26-2013 01:20 PM)curtis0620 Wrote:  

(02-26-2013 01:16 PM)bitcruncher Wrote:  

(02-26-2013 12:45 PM)He1nousOne Wrote:  Such as?

I thought you'd be smart enough to figure that out for yourself...

It would be the teams that start losing more games as a result of having to play teams better than themselves, instead of the patsies they line up every year...

so half of the SEC.

No, it is more like the bottom third every conference has. Besides the bottom 1/3 of the SEC has to play the top 2/3 every year. It is more like the majority of the PAC, over half of the Big 10, and 2/3 of the ACC.

You're absolutely right that it's not limited to the SEC, but I do think that where the potential for adverse impact occurs is actually more in the middle/upper-middle tiers of conferences. While they may not like it, I do think that fans of schools that are consistently in the bottom 1/3rd of a conference are aware of their place, and have expectations that are largely in line with that. Where you could see brand erosion is just below the top dogs, where expanding conference schedules loaded with quality teams could impact the records for teams that have typically had 3-4 out-of-conference wins bolster their overall records.

Fans of schools that consistently hang around the 8 to 10 win range, with occasional forays into 11 or 12 win territory, may start to more consistently be in the 6-8 win range. While it's great to be able to say that you're losing to the likes of say Alabama or LSU when you do lose, in the end those losses do have an impact on perception of a program. There aren't that many home games a year, and if fans are used to going home happy after most of them start having more bad weekends, it can impact fan engagement. Not that it hasn't been happening already, but it'd probably increase the "arms race" of facility additions and enhancements and increase the pace of coaching turnover as schools struggle to avoid falling back.

I agree completely and detailed such in another thread today. I was pointing out that 64 schools is roughly how many bowl teams we have a year now (too many bowls) and that 3/4 of those teams expected to be in bowls annually. So that in order to prevent disgruntled alumni, donors and eventually advertisers what we really needed to do was incorporate schools like Tulane, Rice, Wake Forest, Temple, etc, which have other good programs, are FBS, and strong academically, into the mix and shoot for between 72-80 programs. That way the top 64 stay essentially in the zone they are used to occupying. Unfortunately if we do this the large payouts per school that are projected will go down, perhaps significantly. They should still be higher than they are currently, just nowhere near the projections being thrown around by the Big 10 and SEC.

(02-26-2013 01:51 PM)bitcruncher Wrote:  Easy wins will be much harder to come by...

If they do what I think they are going to do, it will end up looking like a 64-team college version of the NFL. A 10-2 record will be exceptional.

(02-26-2013 03:25 PM)JunkYardCard Wrote:  

(02-26-2013 01:51 PM)bitcruncher Wrote:  Easy wins will be much harder to come by...

If they do what I think they are going to do, it will end up looking like a 64-team college version of the NFL. A 10-2 record will be exceptional.

Unfortunately it wont involve the best 64 college football teams over the past 10 years.

(02-25-2013 04:50 PM)MinerInWisconsin Wrote:  So... nevermind about the B1G raiding anyone for a while. Right?


http://www.sbnation.com/college-football...ealignment

Sure..and I am not really in a big hurry to win the Powerball...

(02-26-2013 03:43 PM)HuskieJohn Wrote:  Unfortunately it wont involve the best 64 college football teams over the past 10 years.

It will in terms of overall budgets. But I agree that in terms of wins and simple competitive force, some very good programs are on the outside looking in, while some welfare queens are tenured, and I think that sucks.

(02-27-2013 07:36 AM)JunkYardCard Wrote:  

(02-26-2013 03:43 PM)HuskieJohn Wrote:  Unfortunately it wont involve the best 64 college football teams over the past 10 years.

It will in terms of overall budgets. But I agree that in terms of wins and simple competitive force, some very good programs are on the outside looking in, while some welfare queens are tenured, and I think that sucks.

Its not going to be the schools with the 64 largest budgets.

062.) University of Nevada-Las Vegas - $54,030,985
063.) Oregon State University - $53,842,177
064.) Brigham Young University - $53,033,500
065.) Wake Forest University - $48,776,185
066.) Washington State University - $47,962,255
067.) University of Memphis - $46,711,713
068.) University of Utah - $46,153,197
069.) University of South Florida - $43,574,401
070.) University of Mississippi - $42,907,294

071.) Southern Methodist University - $42,632,627
072.) University of Cincinnati - $39,577,731
073.) Temple University - $38,973,885
074.) San Diego State University - $38,503,669
075.) University of Central Florida - $37,523,477
076.) University of Hawaii - $34,811,644
077.) East Carolina University - $34,061,954
078.) University of Houston - $32,335,742
079.) University of Tulsa - $31,128,157
080.) Boise State University - $31,051,495