Hello There, Guest! (LoginRegister)

Post Reply 
If the B1G really adds Texas, who is #16? or will there be more?
Author Message
Bookmark and Share
CommuterBob Offline
Head Tailgater
*

Posts: 5,840
Joined: Feb 2012
Reputation: 173
I Root For: UCF, Ohio State
Location:
Post: #1
If the B1G really adds Texas, who is #16? or will there be more?
The thread on the CR board about Texas coming to the B1G has me intrigued. If they come, who is #16? or does the B1G add more and go to 18 or 20? Lots of rumors flying around. Dennis Dodd buried a comment about the B1G not being done with expansion in an article last week and I wasn't the only one who caught it. But it seems that most people have been flying to it and taking off with wild ideas.

So here's my guess (if this rumor is even remotely true):

Texas can't come alone. In fact, the XII won't let anyone out of a GoR unless there's a vote to dissolve the league, and they need 8 schools to do that. So Texas, Oklahoma, Kansas all go to the B1G (along with Mizzou from the SEC). Set up three divisions of 6:

West: Texas, Oklahoma, Kansas, Missouri, Nebraska, Iowa
Central: Minnesota, Wisconsion, Illinois, Northwestern, Purdue, Indiana
East: Michigan, Michigan St., Ohio St., Penn St., Maryland, Rutgers

SEC backfills Mizzou with...aw who gives a rat's ass about who the SEC adds?
08-05-2013 10:06 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Advertisement


He1nousOne Offline
The One you Love to Hate.
*

Posts: 13,285
Joined: Oct 2011
Reputation: 215
I Root For: Iowa/ASU
Location: Arizona
Post: #2
RE: If the B1G really adds Texas, who is #16? or will there be more?
Maybe all that happens but I have yet to see anything that truly shows Texas is coming. Texas likes to grandstand and the Big Ten makes a wonderful dance partner for that. Texas has it's agenda and the Big Ten has it's own. In this case perhaps their agenda's are both well suited by making a show of it.

In the end though I just don't think Texas dares to make such a move.

I do think something big may be happening though within the Big 12 that would affect everyone.

If the Big Ten was to land anyone, I am more of the mind that we just add two programs and other conferences then are able to fill up to the 16 line as well. Division 4 happens, new rules happen, we get four divisions and a brand new shiny football conference tournament.

East
Ohio State
Penn State
Rutgers
Maryland

North
Michigan
Michigan State
Indiana
Purdue

Central (Big Ten offices located in Chicago currently)
Wisconsin
Illinois
Northwestern
Minnesota

West
Oklahoma
Nebraska
Iowa
Kansas

Take the winner of each division and put them in our very own tournament. Do that for each conference and then give each of the FOUR major conference champions an autobid to the 8 team National tournament.


IF Texas was to come though then yes it gets really ugly and the conferences, particularly the Big Ten, are choosing to not play fairly.

The change I would make in your line ups is to boost the Central and weaken the East. That Central division is weak and that isn't likely to change anytime soon. I would take Michigan State and put them in the Central while putting Purdue in the East.

The problem with an 18 team three division conference for the Big Ten is that it is absolutely going to require a 10 team schedule.

Five games in division, two games against each of the other divisions and one protected rivalry game against one team from either of the other divisions that happens every year. That pretty much means that most of the conference will be getting used to 6 home games a year unless one of the new division 4 rules is that the regular season is extended to 13 games not including the two conference tournament weeks.

It is much easier to do 4x4 in conference and stick with 9 games a season.
08-05-2013 02:21 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
mikeinsec127 Offline
1st String
*

Posts: 1,988
Joined: Jul 2009
Reputation: 118
I Root For: Rutgers
Location:
Post: #3
RE: If the B1G really adds Texas, who is #16? or will there be more?
I'm thinking it will be Mizzu instead of Ok, but you are on to something. From where I'm at in NJ it doesn't appear that the original B10 shools want any more expansion right now. It really doesn't look like UVa and UNC are coming. My thoughts are that if the B10 does continue to expand, it will be with two more from the Midwest. Maybe the Great Lakes schools would be more open to two more from their neighborhood. So I'm thinking Kansas and Mizzu.
08-05-2013 04:53 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
ohio1317 Offline
Moderator
*

Posts: 5,675
Joined: Mar 2008
Reputation: 358
I Root For: Ohio State
Location:
Post: #4
RE: If the B1G really adds Texas, who is #16? or will there be more?
Think there is less than nothing to these rumors. Everyone is set till the grant of rights come close to expiring next decade and this isn't any different than the hundreds of other fake expansion rumors that have spread.

For fun though, if Texas was coming, I agree that pods are the way to do it though. In theory, while I don't care for adding more powerful football schools (it's getting way too hard to win a conference championship), my first natural instinct is Oklahoma. They are a rival of both Nebraska and Texas and if you'd actually ever pull this off, you'd need a partner Texas wanted.

I agree pods would be necessary with a 16 team conference, but they are really hard to do. A couple thoughts on the pods:

1. With 9 conference games, 4 rotating pods, and no locked crossovers, you'd play your 3 pod mates every year and everyone else 1/2 the time. You add in a locked crossover out of pod (meaning out of division at least 2 out of 3 years, possibly 3 out of 3 depending on set-up), and you play everyone else less. No locked crossovers are definitely ideal if it can be managed.
2. I would despise any set-up which had Ohio State in an east pod without any traditional opponents and I can imagine most long time fan bases would probably feel the same way about being in a pod without any traditional opponents.
3. Keeping rivalries and competitive balance is key.

With those thoughts in mind, I'd probably do the following:

Pod A
Ohio State
Michigan
Michigan State
Rutgers

Pod B
Nebraska
Oklahoma (locked crossover with Texas)
Indiana
Purdue

Pod C
Wisconsin
Minnesota
Penn State
Maryland

Pod D
Iowa
Texas (locked crossover with Oklahoma)
Illinois
Northwestern

I don't really like this set-up, but I think it's the best we could do with those 16 teams. I didn't want to lock any teams, but did lock Texas/Oklahoma as it would obviously be necessary to keep. That would mean everyone out of their pods would play Texas and Oklahoma a little less than 50% of the time and everyone else out of their pod a little more than 50%.

Set-up: Pods rotate to form 2 different divisions every year. For scheduling ease, you could keep A and B always separate (as well as C and D), but use your crossover games to play the pod you are not in a division with. It wouldn't be necessary though as the pod strength is fairly spread out.

Advantages:
1. Decent set of season ending games: Ohio State/Michigan, Nebraska/Oklahoma, Indiana/Purdue, Illinois/Northwestern, Wisconsin/Minnesota. The rest would probably rotate depending on schedule, but you could lock the other pod mates (Penn State/Maryland, Texas/Iowa, Michigan State/Rutgers)

2. Big names are divided. Of the big 6 (Texas, Oklahoma, Ohio State, Michigan, Penn State, Nebraska), every division as 1 or 2 of them. The divisions that only get 1, end up with Iowa or Wisconsin.

3. Puts emphasis back on Nebraska/Oklahoma.

4. Allows playing everyone regularly

5. No division is all newbies. At least 2 legacy members from 10 team set-up in every division.

6. Most rivalries preserved. All that aren't, are at least every other year.

Disadvantages:
1. Only a little to do with geography and rotating divisions might not be taken well.
2. Messes up a few rivalries/big games. In particular, Iowa is separated from both Wisconsin and Minnesota (will play one every year though). Also Penn State is separated from Rutgers and Ohio State and Purdue from Illinois.
(This post was last modified: 08-05-2013 10:49 PM by ohio1317.)
08-05-2013 10:46 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
ohio1317 Offline
Moderator
*

Posts: 5,675
Joined: Mar 2008
Reputation: 358
I Root For: Ohio State
Location:
Post: #5
RE: If the B1G really adds Texas, who is #16? or will there be more?
With all that said, if the conference actually did expand with 2 in the west, I think they'd be stupid and stick with divisions.

East
Ohio State
Michigan
Michigan State
Penn State
Indiana
Purdue
Rutgers
Maryland

West
Nebraska
Texas
Oklahoma
Wisconsin
Iowa
Minnesota
Illinois
Northwestern

There would be no locked crossovers, but you'd still only play the teams in the other division 1/4 (once each for a 4 year college career) with 9 conference games. That's slightly more often than the SEC and ACC just went to, but still doesn't really feel like a conference.
08-05-2013 10:51 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
USAFMEDIC Offline
Heisman
*

Posts: 5,914
Joined: Jun 2010
Reputation: 189
I Root For: MIZZOU/FSU/USM
Location: Biloxi, MS
Post: #6
RE: If the B1G really adds Texas, who is #16? or will there be more?
(08-05-2013 04:53 PM)mikeinsec127 Wrote:  I'm thinking it will be Mizzu instead of Ok, but you are on to something. From where I'm at in NJ it doesn't appear that the original B10 shools want any more expansion right now. It really doesn't look like UVa and UNC are coming. My thoughts are that if the B10 does continue to expand, it will be with two more from the Midwest. Maybe the Great Lakes schools would be more open to two more from their neighborhood. So I'm thinking Kansas and Mizzu.
Just dropped by to see what your thoughts were as B1G fans. Kansas and Mizzou could easily have been accomplished when Nebraska was invited. I think Kansas will move but not Missouri.....not now.04-cheers
(This post was last modified: 08-06-2013 12:00 AM by USAFMEDIC.)
08-05-2013 11:58 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Advertisement


ohio1317 Offline
Moderator
*

Posts: 5,675
Joined: Mar 2008
Reputation: 358
I Root For: Ohio State
Location:
Post: #7
RE: If the B1G really adds Texas, who is #16? or will there be more?
I agree that Missouri wouldn't move. They would have taken the Big Ten over the SEC 2 years ago, but now that they are in the SEC, there is going to be some loyalty to the new conference. Oddly enough, I think Missouri is also the only realistic option over those Midwestern schools since I think the grant of rights keeps the Big 12 schools out until the contract is close to expiring (say 3 year before it ends when the buyout would be closer to a normal exit fee).
08-06-2013 07:21 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
He1nousOne Offline
The One you Love to Hate.
*

Posts: 13,285
Joined: Oct 2011
Reputation: 215
I Root For: Iowa/ASU
Location: Arizona
Post: #8
RE: If the B1G really adds Texas, who is #16? or will there be more?
Ok, first off. In regards to using pods or two divisions. In my opinion both are a no go now. Pods would have been used previously if we were forced into expansion before New Rules would be able to be passed.

With all of the sudden flurry of action involving the NCAA and a new possible division, the ability to pass those rules is just around the corner. To me it is just common sense that one of those rules will be about allowing more than just two divisions. Pods won't be necessary, instead they can be geographically correct divisions that allow for strong regional rivalries to build up. They will build up because they will be competing for a coveted spot in the new Big Ten Tournament. That will come from another easy rule addition that the Majors will be able to push forward in the new system.

The four division system with the line ups that I put forth would answer all the issues that you outlined Ohio. One of the aspects about college football that is so great are the local/regional rivalries. Taking a system that works in an up front manner that everyone will understand while at the same time maximizing the affect proximity can have on creating strong rivalries is a winning combination in my estimation.
08-06-2013 10:09 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
BruceMcF Offline
Hall of Famer
*

Posts: 13,103
Joined: Jan 2013
Reputation: 760
I Root For: Reds/Buckeyes/.
Location:
Post: #9
RE: If the B1G really adds Texas, who is #16? or will there be more?
Assuming Texas is available so adding schools to make Texas available is circular reasoning. If Texas is available, then its available, and it doesn't matter who #16 is. It could be Pitt, Kansas, Mizzou ... whomever is available to even out the divisions.

But back over here in reality, if the Big Ten is talking to Texas about it now, its so they write the network contract so it doesn't spoil the chance to get Texas in the 20's.
08-06-2013 12:14 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
USAFMEDIC Offline
Heisman
*

Posts: 5,914
Joined: Jun 2010
Reputation: 189
I Root For: MIZZOU/FSU/USM
Location: Biloxi, MS
Post: #10
RE: If the B1G really adds Texas, who is #16? or will there be more?
(08-06-2013 07:21 AM)ohio1317 Wrote:  I agree that Missouri wouldn't move. They would have taken the Big Ten over the SEC 2 years ago, but now that they are in the SEC, there is going to be some loyalty to the new conference. Oddly enough, I think Missouri is also the only realistic option over those Midwestern schools since I think the grant of rights keeps the Big 12 schools out until the contract is close to expiring (say 3 year before it ends when the buyout would be closer to a normal exit fee).

There is a reason why there is no GoR or exit fees in the SEC. Missouri would be the laughing stock of the college world if they left the SEC, even if they got a better deal in the B1G. There is no doubt to me that the B1G is on the hunt to expand though. The existing 14 number makes it obvious...04-cheers
(This post was last modified: 08-06-2013 01:03 PM by USAFMEDIC.)
08-06-2013 01:02 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
bigblueblindness Offline
1st String
*

Posts: 2,073
Joined: Apr 2013
Reputation: 53
I Root For: UK, Lipscomb
Location: Kentucky
Post: #11
RE: If the B1G really adds Texas, who is #16? or will there be more?
(08-06-2013 01:02 PM)USAFMEDIC Wrote:  
(08-06-2013 07:21 AM)ohio1317 Wrote:  I agree that Missouri wouldn't move. They would have taken the Big Ten over the SEC 2 years ago, but now that they are in the SEC, there is going to be some loyalty to the new conference. Oddly enough, I think Missouri is also the only realistic option over those Midwestern schools since I think the grant of rights keeps the Big 12 schools out until the contract is close to expiring (say 3 year before it ends when the buyout would be closer to a normal exit fee).

There is a reason why there is no GoR or exit fees in the SEC. Missouri would be the laughing stock of the college world if they left the SEC, even if they got a better deal in the B1G. There is no doubt to me that the B1G is on the hunt to expand though. The existing 14 number makes it obvious...04-cheers

Right, Medic, and I assume Big 10 fans would feel the same way if, say, Nebraska bolted for the PAC. It would not be anger or fear from the rest of the Big 10 but more "Why would they do that? Oh well." Each conference would then proceed to fill back with someone equal or better than who left or remain at a lower number if it were a stronger position.
08-06-2013 02:12 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Advertisement


ohio1317 Offline
Moderator
*

Posts: 5,675
Joined: Mar 2008
Reputation: 358
I Root For: Ohio State
Location:
Post: #12
RE: If the B1G really adds Texas, who is #16? or will there be more?
(08-06-2013 10:09 AM)He1nousOne Wrote:  Ok, first off. In regards to using pods or two divisions. In my opinion both are a no go now. Pods would have been used previously if we were forced into expansion before New Rules would be able to be passed.

With all of the sudden flurry of action involving the NCAA and a new possible division, the ability to pass those rules is just around the corner. To me it is just common sense that one of those rules will be about allowing more than just two divisions. Pods won't be necessary, instead they can be geographically correct divisions that allow for strong regional rivalries to build up. They will build up because they will be competing for a coveted spot in the new Big Ten Tournament. That will come from another easy rule addition that the Majors will be able to push forward in the new system.

The four division system with the line ups that I put forth would answer all the issues that you outlined Ohio. One of the aspects about college football that is so great are the local/regional rivalries. Taking a system that works in an up front manner that everyone will understand while at the same time maximizing the affect proximity can have on creating strong rivalries is a winning combination in my estimation.

I hope you are wrong about this set-up coming for a couple of reasons.

1. I think a pod like that eastern pod is possible and as a traditional Ohio State fan, I hate it. We are a Midwestern team and would be grouped with no traditional Big Ten teams in an east coast pod. Further the emphasis on the Michigan rivalry would be diminished as we would never be directly competing with them in our season ending game (something finally being corrected with new divisions).

2. I don't want semi-finals in conferences. I already dislike how CCGs de-emphasize a lot of the regular season (teams that weren't clearly the best in accomplishments getting a chance to win it all). Semi-finals would make it even worse. You could have a teams below 500 making the conference playoff at the same time you have the second best team in the conference not making the playoff at all. College football is great because of how you can't take any game to be insignficant. That's less true the larger a conference playoff you get.
(This post was last modified: 08-06-2013 04:55 PM by ohio1317.)
08-06-2013 04:55 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
He1nousOne Offline
The One you Love to Hate.
*

Posts: 13,285
Joined: Oct 2011
Reputation: 215
I Root For: Iowa/ASU
Location: Arizona
Post: #13
RE: If the B1G really adds Texas, who is #16? or will there be more?
(08-06-2013 04:55 PM)ohio1317 Wrote:  
(08-06-2013 10:09 AM)He1nousOne Wrote:  Ok, first off. In regards to using pods or two divisions. In my opinion both are a no go now. Pods would have been used previously if we were forced into expansion before New Rules would be able to be passed.

With all of the sudden flurry of action involving the NCAA and a new possible division, the ability to pass those rules is just around the corner. To me it is just common sense that one of those rules will be about allowing more than just two divisions. Pods won't be necessary, instead they can be geographically correct divisions that allow for strong regional rivalries to build up. They will build up because they will be competing for a coveted spot in the new Big Ten Tournament. That will come from another easy rule addition that the Majors will be able to push forward in the new system.

The four division system with the line ups that I put forth would answer all the issues that you outlined Ohio. One of the aspects about college football that is so great are the local/regional rivalries. Taking a system that works in an up front manner that everyone will understand while at the same time maximizing the affect proximity can have on creating strong rivalries is a winning combination in my estimation.

I hope you are wrong about this set-up coming for a couple of reasons.

1. I think a pod like that eastern pod is possible and as a traditional Ohio State fan, I hate it. We are a Midwestern team and would be grouped with no traditional Big Ten teams in an east coast pod. Further the emphasis on the Michigan rivalry would be diminished as we would never be directly competing with them in our season ending game (something finally being corrected with new divisions).

2. I don't want semi-finals in conferences. I already dislike how CCGs de-emphasize a lot of the regular season (teams that weren't clearly the best in accomplishments getting a chance to win it all). Semi-finals would make it even worse. You could have a teams below 500 making the conference playoff at the same time you have the second best team in the conference not making the playoff at all. College football is great because of how you can't take any game to be insignficant. That's less true the larger a conference playoff you get.

Sound points, I will do my best to respond to each.

1. I understand that you want to have those tight divisional rivalries against your more traditional opponents. I am sure your feelings are shared up on high at Ohio State. My perspective is coming from a slightly less biased perspective I think. When I come up with these line up's I am not thinking of what is best for Iowa. Certainly being lumped in with Nebraska, Oklahoma and Kansas doesn't give tribute to the history of Iowa. If anything it will submit the school to ribbing about stealing the "life" of Iowa State.

None the less, I feel it would be for the "greater good" of the conference and in turn that is what is best for Iowa. The same is the case for Ohio State. Your worries about having some weakness in the Conference Tournament is case in point of why Ohio State should go along with this plan. It is about spreading out the Major Programs so that they do not cancel each other out and allow for the scenario that you worry about to happen more often.

As far as your rivalry with Michigan....I don't really have an easy answer for that. Perhaps we can save the last week of the season still for rivalry week but that will become a real headache trying to figure that one out. I am not going to delve into it because it is such a headache. I would have to be paid to accept tackling that challenge. 07-coffee3


2. Now, for your second point. I agree that the Conference Championships as they are DO mitigate the regular season to some degree. On the other hand though, extending them to a four team tournament will mean having four divisions instead of two. That mirrors the NFL system to some degree and the regular season of the NFL is hardly irrelevant. I do differ with you to some degree because I see with my very own eyes that these teams truly do not reach their true identity till later in the season. Their end of season play is what they should be judged on more heavily so I like the idea of these playoffs. Wisconsin last year was case in point. They didn't get themselves figured out till the end due to injuries and figuring out their scheme.

I think the odds of a four team division producing a .500 team as their best team are very slim. I understand the fear but the math doesn't seem to match up for me. With these teams being in high competition for those division crowns, every season game will be just as important as ever. I am sorry, I just cant agree with your line of thinking that this system will mitigate the regular season's value. If anything it will ramp it up because there will actually be something to play for besides just the conference championship. There will be division titles to play for as well.
08-06-2013 07:08 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
ohio1317 Offline
Moderator
*

Posts: 5,675
Joined: Mar 2008
Reputation: 358
I Root For: Ohio State
Location:
Post: #14
RE: If the B1G really adds Texas, who is #16? or will there be more?
Good discussion.

(08-06-2013 07:08 PM)He1nousOne Wrote:  Sound points, I will do my best to respond to each.

1. I understand that you want to have those tight divisional rivalries against your more traditional opponents. I am sure your feelings are shared up on high at Ohio State. My perspective is coming from a slightly less biased perspective I think. When I come up with these line up's I am not thinking of what is best for Iowa. Certainly being lumped in with Nebraska, Oklahoma and Kansas doesn't give tribute to the history of Iowa. If anything it will submit the school to ribbing about stealing the "life" of Iowa State.

None the less, I feel it would be for the "greater good" of the conference and in turn that is what is best for Iowa. The same is the case for Ohio State. Your worries about having some weakness in the Conference Tournament is case in point of why Ohio State should go along with this plan. It is about spreading out the Major Programs so that they do not cancel each other out and allow for the scenario that you worry about to happen more often.

The best way to avoid that senario though in my opinion is to avoid 4 divisional set-ups to begin with. Even if a conference tournament was ideal (I'll never be convinced even a CCG is, but I know I'm in minority), simply set-up the schedules with a few locked rivalries each (2-3) and then take the 4 best teams at the end of the season. That way you'd still be playing everyone just as frequently as with 4 divisions (or 4 pods).

Say the final results ended like this:

1. Nebraska (9-0)
2. Iowa (8-1)
3. Penn State (7-2)
3. Illinois (7-2)
3. Michigan State (7-2)

Nebraska would be in as the 1 seed, Iowa as the 2, and then based on tie breakers 2 of Penn State, Illinois, and Michigan State.




(08-06-2013 07:08 PM)He1nousOne Wrote:  2. Now, for your second point. I agree that the Conference Championships as they are DO mitigate the regular season to some degree. On the other hand though, extending them to a four team tournament will mean having four divisions instead of two. That mirrors the NFL system to some degree and the regular season of the NFL is hardly irrelevant. I do differ with you to some degree because I see with my very own eyes that these teams truly do not reach their true identity till later in the season. Their end of season play is what they should be judged on more heavily so I like the idea of these playoffs. Wisconsin last year was case in point. They didn't get themselves figured out till the end due to injuries and figuring out their scheme.

The regular season in the NFL is greatly aided by gambling and fantasy football. Regardless, college thrives by being something very different than the NFL and I don't think emulating it is a recipe for success.

(08-06-2013 07:08 PM)He1nousOne Wrote:  I think the odds of a four team division producing a .500 team as their best team are very slim. I understand the fear but the math doesn't seem to match up for me. With these teams being in high competition for those division crowns, every season game will be just as important as ever. I am sorry, I just cant agree with your line of thinking that this system will mitigate the regular season's value. If anything it will ramp it up because there will actually be something to play for besides just the conference championship. There will be division titles to play for as well.

With only 2 teams out of it, we had a 4-4 team in the CCG last year. The PAC-12 had a 5-4 (6-6 overall) UCLA team in it 2 years ago with only 1 team excluded by sanctions. If we go 4 divisions of 4 teams, that only means 3 of 9 games will be against divisional foes. I think at least one 5-4 finish would actually be pretty common with a few 4-5 finishes occasionally making it in.
(This post was last modified: 08-06-2013 11:58 PM by ohio1317.)
08-06-2013 11:57 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
He1nousOne Offline
The One you Love to Hate.
*

Posts: 13,285
Joined: Oct 2011
Reputation: 215
I Root For: Iowa/ASU
Location: Arizona
Post: #15
RE: If the B1G really adds Texas, who is #16? or will there be more?
Yes, being selective Will increase the outcome of better results if you judge results ONLY by records. This is where the NFL does it right though. I prefer strong divisional rivalries and something that truly gives those rivalries TRUE VALUE. Not this false perceived value that the Universities build up for the sake of ticket sales. That really is all that these regular season rivalries of the past amount to. Well if we are gonna do it for the ticket sales then small geographical divisions will absolutely build up those match ups into rivalries. You can still have your favorite traditional rivalry protected but the days of having a rival such as Illinois? That is just silly for Ohio State.

Yes, the regular season in the NFL is aided by the things you listed but the divisional match ups are more important and each division has internal rivalries as the major rivalries for each team. That is because they actually compete against each other for something of REAL value. That makes their regular season match ups very meaningful whether or not any money is bet on them or not. I think you are focusing on a very narrow aspect of what goes on due to the NFL rather than just looking at the rational efficiency of the system that the NFL operates with.

Lastly, I expect folks who hate the Big Ten to bring up the fluke that was last year as evidence. I would expect most Big Ten fans though to realize it was a very serious fluke and not a normal occurance. With the full line up, last year wouldn't have seemed so out of sorts.

The same would be the case for most years and I don't see how only having 3 out of 9 matchups being the in division match ups changes that.
08-07-2013 01:19 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
ohio1317 Offline
Moderator
*

Posts: 5,675
Joined: Mar 2008
Reputation: 358
I Root For: Ohio State
Location:
Post: #16
RE: If the B1G really adds Texas, who is #16? or will there be more?
I will concede that if the conference ever got to 16 teams, 4 divisions would give people something big to play for when they often would have been eliminated (effectively) from conference title implications otherwise. I think the negatives still outweigh the positives of that approach though.

Where we partially disagree is that I see a much better ability to respect existing rivalries without breaking up into 4 divisions than I do in 4 divisions. If you are starting from scratch, then I can see the small geographic divisions being something to consider, but we aren't starting from scratch, we are starting with well more than a 100 years of history. The existing rivalries do not fit neatly into groups of 4 (although I'll admit, if the PAC-16 had come about, it would have worked perfectly) and that's why I would like to avoid any set-up the highlights the 4 groups too much.

I suppose the bigger point is competitiveness though. Let me try to explain better than I was before. Wisconsin would not have won the Legends last year if everyone had been eligible and same with UCLA 2 years ago in the PAC-12 South, but that's because we are thinking about those being in 6 team divisions. In 6 team divisions, with 8/9 conference games, 5 of 8/9 games were in division. It's almost impossible for there not to be one team that finishes above 500 given that set-up and record. When you are only 1/3 your teams are in division though, it becomes much, much easier (since there is no guaranteed wins for a division every week). Last year was effectively a 4 team division in the Leaders. You can think of the division as only containing Wisconsin, Illinois, Purdue, and Indiana. The Penn State and Ohio State games for those teams were effectively out of division games when we are talking about the CCG implications. In that set-up, Wisconsin won with a 500 record. Now I'm certainly not saying that will be the case every year, but when you are talking 4 divisions, that is very likely to repeat a lot more often than people would guess. The fact we also saw a 5-4 UCLA team win what was effectively a 5 team PAC-12 South lends credence to that.

The other thing with the NFL to remember is the wildcard. The NFL has it and often has wildcard teams stronger than division winners. We couldn't add that in college and that means you definitely have much better teams sitting at home vs. a much weaker division team (we already have that with CCGs, but it gets worse with smaller divisions).
08-07-2013 09:47 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Advertisement


He1nousOne Offline
The One you Love to Hate.
*

Posts: 13,285
Joined: Oct 2011
Reputation: 215
I Root For: Iowa/ASU
Location: Arizona
Post: #17
RE: If the B1G really adds Texas, who is #16? or will there be more?
(08-07-2013 09:47 AM)ohio1317 Wrote:  I will concede that if the conference ever got to 16 teams, 4 divisions would give people something big to play for when they often would have been eliminated (effectively) from conference title implications otherwise. I think the negatives still outweigh the positives of that approach though.

Where we partially disagree is that I see a much better ability to respect existing rivalries without breaking up into 4 divisions than I do in 4 divisions. If you are starting from scratch, then I can see the small geographic divisions being something to consider, but we aren't starting from scratch, we are starting with well more than a 100 years of history. The existing rivalries do not fit neatly into groups of 4 (although I'll admit, if the PAC-16 had come about, it would have worked perfectly) and that's why I would like to avoid any set-up the highlights the 4 groups too much.

I suppose the bigger point is competitiveness though. Let me try to explain better than I was before. Wisconsin would not have won the Legends last year if everyone had been eligible and same with UCLA 2 years ago in the PAC-12 South, but that's because we are thinking about those being in 6 team divisions. In 6 team divisions, with 8/9 conference games, 5 of 8/9 games were in division. It's almost impossible for there not to be one team that finishes above 500 given that set-up and record. When you are only 1/3 your teams are in division though, it becomes much, much easier (since there is no guaranteed wins for a division every week). Last year was effectively a 4 team division in the Leaders. You can think of the division as only containing Wisconsin, Illinois, Purdue, and Indiana. The Penn State and Ohio State games for those teams were effectively out of division games when we are talking about the CCG implications. In that set-up, Wisconsin won with a 500 record. Now I'm certainly not saying that will be the case every year, but when you are talking 4 divisions, that is very likely to repeat a lot more often than people would guess. The fact we also saw a 5-4 UCLA team win what was effectively a 5 team PAC-12 South lends credence to that.

The other thing with the NFL to remember is the wildcard. The NFL has it and often has wildcard teams stronger than division winners. We couldn't add that in college and that means you definitely have much better teams sitting at home vs. a much weaker division team (we already have that with CCGs, but it gets worse with smaller divisions).

Does anyone today question the worthiness of the Giants being Super Bowl champions at 9-7? No, because they earned that through competition. As my earlier point, teams do not reach their true potential until some point during the season. Some losses early on do not necessarily make for a garbage team. Yes, for a few years people will impose the mentality we have today upon such a new system but if a team earns their way through then kudo's to them. I love a Cinderella story.

Here is the problem though, if you have a 6 win team getting to the conference tournament then they will likely be the #4 seed going up against the strongest team in the conference during that semifinal match up. The odds would be stacked heavily against them and as a conference is it really so bad that our top nationally ranked team would have an easier road to the championship game? In competition nationally, that is not a bad thing for the conference. It puts the odds in that #1 team's favor that they go all the way through and thus will be representing the conference in the National Tournament.

The scenario you bring up isn't necessarily a bad one when you take a look at the bigger picture that broadens out from that aspect.

In terms of protecting old rivalries? It can be done. You give each school one protected rival pick from other divisions and then your school ends up playing the other teams in that division every three years instead of every other year. No big deal.
(This post was last modified: 08-07-2013 10:15 AM by He1nousOne.)
08-07-2013 10:14 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
BruceMcF Offline
Hall of Famer
*

Posts: 13,103
Joined: Jan 2013
Reputation: 760
I Root For: Reds/Buckeyes/.
Location:
Post: #18
RE: If the B1G really adds Texas, who is #16? or will there be more?
(08-05-2013 10:46 PM)ohio1317 Wrote:  Think there is less than nothing to these rumors. Everyone is set till the grant of rights come close to expiring next decade and this isn't any different than the hundreds of other fake expansion rumors that have spread.

Yeah, its hit-bait in the summer doldrums between the end of the last of the Spring sports and the first snap of the first 2013 college football season.
08-07-2013 01:09 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
He1nousOne Offline
The One you Love to Hate.
*

Posts: 13,285
Joined: Oct 2011
Reputation: 215
I Root For: Iowa/ASU
Location: Arizona
Post: #19
RE: If the B1G really adds Texas, who is #16? or will there be more?
(08-07-2013 01:09 PM)BruceMcF Wrote:  
(08-05-2013 10:46 PM)ohio1317 Wrote:  Think there is less than nothing to these rumors. Everyone is set till the grant of rights come close to expiring next decade and this isn't any different than the hundreds of other fake expansion rumors that have spread.

Yeah, its hit-bait in the summer doldrums between the end of the last of the Spring sports and the first snap of the first 2013 college football season.

Except that the Oklahoma AD just spoke and was reported today that he doesn't think realignment is over. That it is his "gut feeling". It really isn't just hit bait, things are heating up again with all that is going on with the NCAA.
08-07-2013 02:24 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
CommuterBob Offline
Head Tailgater
*

Posts: 5,840
Joined: Feb 2012
Reputation: 173
I Root For: UCF, Ohio State
Location:
Post: #20
RE: If the B1G really adds Texas, who is #16? or will there be more?
(08-07-2013 02:24 PM)He1nousOne Wrote:  
(08-07-2013 01:09 PM)BruceMcF Wrote:  
(08-05-2013 10:46 PM)ohio1317 Wrote:  Think there is less than nothing to these rumors. Everyone is set till the grant of rights come close to expiring next decade and this isn't any different than the hundreds of other fake expansion rumors that have spread.

Yeah, its hit-bait in the summer doldrums between the end of the last of the Spring sports and the first snap of the first 2013 college football season.

Except that the Oklahoma AD just spoke and was reported today that he doesn't think realignment is over. That it is his "gut feeling". It really isn't just hit bait, things are heating up again with all that is going on with the NCAA.

That could literally mean anything from OK moving, to the XII adding a couple of teams. I don't think you can construe that comment as anything definitive.
08-07-2013 11:13 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply 




User(s) browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)


Copyright © 2002-2024 Collegiate Sports Nation Bulletin Board System (CSNbbs), All Rights Reserved.
CSNbbs is an independent fan site and is in no way affiliated to the NCAA or any of the schools and conferences it represents.
This site monetizes links. FTC Disclosure.
We allow third-party companies to serve ads and/or collect certain anonymous information when you visit our web site. These companies may use non-personally identifiable information (e.g., click stream information, browser type, time and date, subject of advertisements clicked or scrolled over) during your visits to this and other Web sites in order to provide advertisements about goods and services likely to be of greater interest to you. These companies typically use a cookie or third party web beacon to collect this information. To learn more about this behavioral advertising practice or to opt-out of this type of advertising, you can visit http://www.networkadvertising.org.
Powered By MyBB, © 2002-2024 MyBB Group.