RE: In era where conference realignment has killed rivalries, Battle of I-10 has survived
(10-18-2023 07:39 AM)esayem Wrote: ... Looking at the record books, I have to think there was quite a bit of hate between Marshall and Toledo back in the day. ...
You'll have to ask a Toledo fan who was a fan back in the day, but sometimes having a long standing rival will make the slow the development of other rivalries ... and in any event, Marshall's second stint in the MAC was a short enough stay that there wasn't much of a chance to develop something that could persist OOC.
I doubt many Toledo fans were metaphorically standing by the bus waving a sarcastic goodbye to Marshall as they left to join CUSA.
(This post was last modified: 10-18-2023 08:03 AM by BruceMcF.)
RE: In era where conference realignment has killed rivalries, Battle of I-10 has survived
(10-18-2023 08:02 AM)BruceMcF Wrote:
(10-18-2023 07:39 AM)esayem Wrote: ... Looking at the record books, I have to think there was quite a bit of hate between Marshall and Toledo back in the day. ...
You'll have to ask a Toledo fan who was a fan back in the day, but sometimes having a long standing rival will make the slow the development of other rivalries ... and in any event, Marshall's second stint in the MAC was a short enough stay that there wasn't much of a chance to develop something that could persist OOC.
I was looking at MAC CCGs and they both appear like every year almost when Marshall was a member.
RE: In era where conference realignment has killed rivalries, Battle of I-10 has survived
(10-17-2023 01:41 PM)Scoochpooch1 Wrote:
(10-17-2023 11:52 AM)quo vadis Wrote:
(10-17-2023 11:22 AM)eku05 Wrote:
(10-17-2023 09:42 AM)Scoochpooch1 Wrote: I would say "hurt feelings" more than Realignment hurt rivalries.
1) Kansas vs Missouri, why won't Kansas play Missouri, I thought the Big 12 is an equal if not better regarded conference?
2) Texas vs A&M, why won't Texas play A&M, I thought the Big 12 is an equal if not better regarded conference?
3) BYU vs Utah, why won't BYU play Utah, I though they were so powerful that they didn't need the PAC or any conference to promote their brand?
4) WVU vs Pitt, not sure who stopped this but after a few years, they were both in stellar conferences so why not play OOC?
5) Nebraska vs Colorado, not sure who stopped this but after a few years, they were both in stellar conferences so why not play OOC?
6) Oklahoma vs Nebraska, why hadn't Oklahoma play Nebraska, I thought the Big 12 is an equal if not better regarded conference?
In many of these cases it isn't that these schools want to specifically avoid each other. It's just that they have limited OOC games and don't want to get locked into a long-term home and home featuring a game you might actually lose a decent chunk of the time.
Schools don't want what fans want. They want easy wins to make sure they get bowl eligible, and they want home games they don't have to return so they can play at home seven to eight games a season.
We as fans love to say we hate that mentality, but most of us don't hate it enough to stop patronizing the product...so why would they listen to us?
I agree, and I also think there is another factor at work. Fans say they want their team to just play tough OOC games vs attractive opponents, they claim to abhor "body bag" games etc., but what they really mean is they want to play and beat attractive tough OOC teams. But the bottom line is, if you play tough OOC games all the time, you will likely lose a lot of them.
In the end, I think deep down most fans would rather see their team beat a soft opponent than lose to a tough one. And the schools realize this, even if the fans claim otherwise.
You are right. But that's why a heavier conference schedule without any penalty for losing OOC games is the better route. Teams play the OOC games for the fans but won't need to worry about it affecting the playoff except for seeding services.
The issue I have with this is that IMO, OOC games are actually better than conference games in determining worthiness for making a national playoff. E.g., if conference X is soft, then beating all the teams in that conference only proves you were the best of that sorry lot. Doesn't tell us how you stack up vs teams in other conferences that also are bidding for the playoffs. But win a game vs a tough OOC opponent, and now you have proven yourself vs other conferences.
That IMO is what separated 2021 Cincy from the other top G5 teams of the past 10 years that might have claimed they deserved a shot in the playoffs. The AAC wasn't that good in 2021, but Cincy beat Notre Dame, a team ranked IIRC between 5 and 15 all season. That IMO showed they were good in a national sense, not just an AAC sense.
(This post was last modified: 10-18-2023 01:47 PM by quo vadis.)
RE: In era where conference realignment has killed rivalries, Battle of I-10 has survived
I know Ball St & Northern Illinois have a rivalry trophy, but I think both fanbases recognize it as one of those forced rivalry trophies. At minimum, it's not to the level the MAC's other rivalries are.
I think OP's list missed one but not sure which one.
(10-18-2023 07:23 AM)BruceMcF Wrote:
(10-17-2023 09:25 AM)bullet Wrote: I thought WMU-Toledo was a really big rivalry?
On Knowrivalry, Toledo supporters have BGSU (72.6%), Northern Illinois (16.2%), and WMU (5.9%). WMU supporters have CMU (80.4%), Toledo (8%), and EMU (5.5%).
So it's kind of there, and fairly balanced (unlike WMU/EMU, Bowling Green / Kent State or Bowling Green / Miami), but nowhere near the intensity of the main rivalry of either.
Looking at the Knowrivalry chart of rivalry for Penn State, which adds up intensity of school's supporters rivalry and intensity of rivalry from the supporters of the other school, kind of shows how Penn State ended up "unrivaled" in Flex Protect: except for Pitt, all of its rivalries are very unbalanced, with either Penn State Supporters caring and the other team's supporters not so much, or else the other team's supporters caring, and Penn State not so much.
I consider Toledo a big rival. Both those who are fans & those who know less about our program & the MAC in general know that the road has to go thru Toledo. Toledo usually brings the most fans to Kalamazoo outside Central (& maybe Eastern, tho Eastern's been bringing more lately). So it at least feels like a big game. It's different from playing Ball St or even Northern Illinois
But it just hasn't caught on to the level the Western/Central rivalry has, which is a shame. Probably b/c we're usually not as good as Toledo unfortunately.........Indeed as the numbers show, my guess is Toledo probably considers NIU more of a rival considering NIU is also usually the one challenging them. Should be Central 75, Toledo 12, Eastern 12
(This post was last modified: 10-18-2023 02:07 PM by Bronco'14.)
RE: In era where conference realignment has killed rivalries, Battle of I-10 has survived
(10-17-2023 09:25 AM)bullet Wrote: I thought WMU-Toledo was a really big rivalry?
Not really. Western Michigan and Toledo are both often good, so the games sometimes matter. But I'd say Toledo and Northern Illinois has been more of a rivalry over the past 20 years. The data BruceMcF pulled aligns to this.
(10-18-2023 07:39 AM)esayem Wrote: Looking at the record books, I have to think there was quite a bit of hate between Marshall and Toledo back in the day.
Toledo absolutely hated Marshall 20 years ago. It was a hell of a rivalry back then.
RE: In era where conference realignment has killed rivalries, Battle of I-10 has survived
(10-18-2023 01:41 PM)quo vadis Wrote:
(10-17-2023 01:41 PM)Scoochpooch1 Wrote:
(10-17-2023 11:52 AM)quo vadis Wrote:
(10-17-2023 11:22 AM)eku05 Wrote:
(10-17-2023 09:42 AM)Scoochpooch1 Wrote: I would say "hurt feelings" more than Realignment hurt rivalries.
1) Kansas vs Missouri, why won't Kansas play Missouri, I thought the Big 12 is an equal if not better regarded conference?
2) Texas vs A&M, why won't Texas play A&M, I thought the Big 12 is an equal if not better regarded conference?
3) BYU vs Utah, why won't BYU play Utah, I though they were so powerful that they didn't need the PAC or any conference to promote their brand?
4) WVU vs Pitt, not sure who stopped this but after a few years, they were both in stellar conferences so why not play OOC?
5) Nebraska vs Colorado, not sure who stopped this but after a few years, they were both in stellar conferences so why not play OOC?
6) Oklahoma vs Nebraska, why hadn't Oklahoma play Nebraska, I thought the Big 12 is an equal if not better regarded conference?
In many of these cases it isn't that these schools want to specifically avoid each other. It's just that they have limited OOC games and don't want to get locked into a long-term home and home featuring a game you might actually lose a decent chunk of the time.
Schools don't want what fans want. They want easy wins to make sure they get bowl eligible, and they want home games they don't have to return so they can play at home seven to eight games a season.
We as fans love to say we hate that mentality, but most of us don't hate it enough to stop patronizing the product...so why would they listen to us?
I agree, and I also think there is another factor at work. Fans say they want their team to just play tough OOC games vs attractive opponents, they claim to abhor "body bag" games etc., but what they really mean is they want to play and beat attractive tough OOC teams. But the bottom line is, if you play tough OOC games all the time, you will likely lose a lot of them.
In the end, I think deep down most fans would rather see their team beat a soft opponent than lose to a tough one. And the schools realize this, even if the fans claim otherwise.
You are right. But that's why a heavier conference schedule without any penalty for losing OOC games is the better route. Teams play the OOC games for the fans but won't need to worry about it affecting the playoff except for seeding services.
The issue I have with this is that IMO, OOC games are actually better than conference games in determining worthiness for making a national playoff. E.g., if conference X is soft, then beating all the teams in that conference only proves you were the best of that sorry lot. Doesn't tell us how you stack up vs teams in other conferences that also are bidding for the playoffs. But win a game vs a tough OOC opponent, and now you have proven yourself vs other conferences.
That IMO is what separated 2021 Cincy from the other top G5 teams of the past 10 years that might have claimed they deserved a shot in the playoffs. The AAC wasn't that good in 2021, but Cincy beat Notre Dame, a team ranked IIRC between 5 and 15 all season. That IMO showed they were good in a national sense, not just an AAC sense.
I totally see your point just not sure there's enough data points but from the other thread I would love to devise a schedule like this ideally. How about something like the NFL does? If the season was expanded to 14 games - you can play 10 conf games, 1-2 vs OOC rivals, and then 2-3 vs corresponding place of another Power Conf. #1 vs #1 and so-on.
Also, yesterday I decided CFP based on Champions League format. Granting 3 points for conf appearance, 7 points for win/finals runner-up, and 10 pts for 2 wins/champion. Taking the % of points earned vs total points, CFP spots can be allocated each year to conferences based on past performance, here's the breakdown of 12 and 16 team formats:
ACC 2;3
B10 2;3
B12 1;2
SEC 5;7
G5;1; 1
Open 1;0 old PAC spot TBD
RE: In era where conference realignment has killed rivalries, Battle of I-10 has survived
They may not be in the same conference but UTSA-Texas State and FIU-FAU remains quite real. Kennesaw State/Georgia State might be interesting in the future.
/
In era where conference realignment has killed rivalries, Battle of I-10 has survived
