Kiyoat Husker

Nice. Thanks for the info, everyone. I'll check out the recruiting forum as well.

Does anyone know or have numbers on the current walk-on program? I remember that being a major criticism of the previous two coaches who downsized it. Supposedly Pelini recharged the program and was going to try not to lose any in-state kids in recruiting battles. I just haven't heard anything about it recently, and I wonder if a strong walk-on program could help us when there are injury and depth issues, like we had on the D line. I guess the D line is harder to get the right kids in there that will be effective, though.

I have a feeling Delaney is turning the Big Ten into the Ivy League where we only play teams within our conference. If we go to more conference games and can't schedule fcs teams we are gonna have to schedule sun belt or mac teams just to get ready for the Big Ten. Less chance of marquee matchups when you only have 3 out of conference games. Sure Delaney is making more money but it's not making the conference any better which is where it needs to go.

how do Div IAA schools help us in any way, other than a likely win? Those games don't strengthen the team, just costs us a cool mil.

 

the fcs teams provide a purpose. They let us fine tune the basics and see what we have in backups. FCS teams are also starting to move up to FBS more frequently thus providing a greater challenge than in years past. You don't want to start conference play and not find out everything you can about your team. Starting out against a higher caliber you may not have the chance to find out because you can't put your backups in cause of a closer game.

I won't expound on this too much, as I see the subject already has a thread in the football forum, but you are simultaneously arguing that we should be able to schedule a D1AA school, but complaining that 3 games is not enough to schedule any marquee matchups. Doesn't the D1AA school take away one more opportunity as well? I know the paying fans don't appreciate the cupcake games as much. And if you think there is such a huge risk in having to go to the sun belt or the MAC, then this conference is in dire straights indeed.

I have a feeling Delaney is turning the Big Ten into the Ivy League where we only play teams within our conference. If we go to more conference games and can't schedule fcs teams we are gonna have to schedule sun belt or mac teams just to get ready for the Big Ten. Less chance of marquee matchups when you only have 3 out of conference games. Sure Delaney is making more money but it's not making the conference any better which is where it needs to go.

how do Div IAA schools help us in any way, other than a likely win? Those games don't strengthen the team, just costs us a cool mil.

Well, the poll has been up for about a week, and the voting seems to have leveled off, so here how things look:

Kansas 15 votes surprised that many on this board agree with me on this one. Even in an unscientific poll with small sample size, this maybe shows a Husker preference.

Florida State 14 votes seems that many in the B1G outside of Nebraska are high on Texas. Maybe this is the Husker version of what TX represents as an expansion target. We also have a little MNC history here.

North Carolina 13 votes most popular here among the more likely targets

Notre Dame 9 votes this one surprises me. Thought it would be higher, but maybe people have just resigned themselves to the fact that ND has spurned the B1G

Virginia 7 votes hopefully will be the next chess piece?... Very high academic get, and strengthens the DC market ($$$)

Texas 7 votes like a bad penny...

GA Tech 6 votes we might warm up to them more if the likelihood of them joining increases?

nobody 5 votes

Missouri 2 votes one of these votes was an "automatic" one when the poll started. Ouch. I wonder why we are not excited about them as a target. Close recruiting areas that we have exploited in the past... would be an embarrassment for the SEC to lose out to the B1G. Also Missouri is a better cultural and geographic match to us. I did hate that Chase Daniels, though.

I think that trying to use competitive balance as a criteria for divisions is a fool's errand. Maybe it could be important for the top 2 or 4 schools, but aside from that we should have used geography and rivalries as primary factors. dominance or futility in football is in constant flux, and has been affected by many factors in the last 10 or 20 years. Wisconsin and Kansas State were doormats for most of thier existence, but both have had periods of excellence recently. Miami "appeared" out of nowhere in the early eighties, but now is considered a football blueblood. It is too hard to predict the future to make bizarre arrangements based on competitive balance. I think Wisconsin belongs in the western group no matter how you slice it. And Michigan and Ohio State should be in the same division.

 

I'm somewhat split when it comes to competitive balance. When Nebraska first joined and we were talking about divisions I started looking into the historical performance of teams. It soon became apparently that most teams tend to have a general level of success that they don't deviate from over the long term. While there may be some highs & lows the majority of schools tend to

 

There have actually only been a very small number of schools that have bootstrapped themselves to the next level of performance for a sustained period....the Wisconsins, Northwesterns, Kansas States, Virginia Techs, Oregons & Miamis are actually the exception rather than the norm.

 

To be honest what I found to be the best way to determine a team likely to have sustained success was to look at FB spending by the athletic department. There is a very correlation between the two. There is also a lot of inertia involved with FB success; good teams tend to stay good while bad teams tend to stay bad.

 

Another aspect of 'competitive balance' that gets overlooked is that equal access to the more successfull/brand name teams is beneficial to those who don't typically enjoy much success. The general consensus is that Ohio State, TSUN & PSU will all end up in the east and over the long run it's possible that will actually hurt some of the western teams. It means Minnesota & Illinois won't be on national TV quite as often & that attendance may sag with only a single marquee team (Nebraska) in their division.

 

So yeah I agree that 'competitive balance' isn't something that can be absolutely planned in advance there is a level that can (and should) be taken into account when planning long term divisions.

 

Thanks for the clarification. I chose to put Pitt and UVA in the EC division mostly based on geography, but you could easily swap Penn State and Virginia. in fact, that might actually be a more appealing option. I just thought it would be little strange to have a division made up entirely of B1G newcomers (Rutgers, Maryland, UVA, Duke, UNC). In regards to competitive balance, that's the beauty of my rotating system - it helps ensure that no one division ever becomes too dominant, while also keeping intact many of the important geographical rivalries.

 

 

Thanks, got it!

I agree with a lot of what you are saying, and you made your points eloquently, but my view is that college football is a completely different animal today than it was just 20 years ago. Kids are not going to just go to Michigan because it is "MICHIGAN!". The 85 schollie rules, and the escalating popularity of the sport, and recruiting have leveled the playing field in many ways. Top recruiting targets no longer wish to ride the bench for 3 years at one of a handful of elite schools. They simply transfer as if it were free agency. As a result, the elite schools no longer have an exhaustive bench of talent, and injuries can be devastating to your season. Money and facilities have escalated in response to this recruiting game. Again we have the split between haves and have-nots based on budget and access to talent, but it is not always the same line-up of schools in the "have" group. In effect I am agreeing with Woody's egotistical new coach, and saying that if the B1G wants to remain relevant we need to invest heavily in the new recruiting game and rest less on our "legends and leaders" laurels.

The example of Wisconsin is interesting, because of the time-frame used by the B1G brass to evaluate "competitive balance". I believe they looked at only the years since PSU joined the league in the early nineties. Wisconsin's record over that time was great. Enough to put it in the second tier of B1G schools behind OSU, Mich, Nebraska and PSU. I agree that KSU and Wisconsin are anomalies in that they had a long consistent streak of losing for around a hundred years. Alvarez and Snyder were really incredible coaches that overcame the odds, and redefined success at their schools. Is this success sustainable? I'm not sure. KSU is likely to take another nose dive post-Snyder. They just don't have the tradition, facilities, fan base, money, or easy access to top recruits to sustain what Snyder has done. Wisconsin's future isn't guaranteed either. While their fan base is large and passionate, it is really hard to recruit to Wisconsin. They could be in for a sustained drought.

But whether or not they are dominant, the rivalry with Minnesota will always be there, and will always be important to the fans. That is why I think it was silly to split them. Same with OSU-Michigan.

...Taking UVA off the table since they submitted their paperwork...

Hadn't heard this part. Would be a great addition in my book. Hopefully would fuel getting NC.

This just in...

The "Catholic 7" are rumored to be retaining the Big East name, and adding Butler and Xavier from the Atlantic 10 conference. Also, Creighton may join them as early as next year!

http://espn.go.com/mens-college-basketball/story/_/id/9000502/catholic-7-schools-keep-big-east-name-new-league-next-season-according-sources

I think that trying to use competitive balance as a criteria for divisions is a fool's errand. Maybe it could be important for the top 2 or 4 schools, but aside from that we should have used geography and rivalries as primary factors. dominance or futility in football is in constant flux, and has been affected by many factors in the last 10 or 20 years. Wisconsin and Kansas State were doormats for most of thier existence, but both have had periods of excellence recently. Miami "appeared" out of nowhere in the early eighties, but now is considered a football blueblood. It is too hard to predict the future to make bizarre arrangements based on competitive balance. I think Wisconsin belongs in the western group no matter how you slice it. And Michigan and Ohio State should be in the same division.

HuskerHacker,

I like your points, but that was your 666th post on this board. This can't be good.

I'm surprised this was not brought up in the recent changes to recruiting rules. Maybe it was. I think this is a HUGE advantage in recruiting, and the B1G either needs to raise a stink, or go to a similar system as the SEC. Taking the moral high ground is one thing, but purposefully placing the league at a disadvantage is another.

 

Breaking those schools into pods would look something like:

 

Western:

Nebraska

Kansas

Iowa

Minnesota

Wisconsin

 

North:

Sparty

Northwestern

Illinois

Missouri

 

Central:

Ohio State

TSUN

Purdue

Indiana

 

Atlantic:

Penn State

Rutgers

Maryland

Virginia

North Carolina

Sold. Where do I sign?

Interesting that there are a lot of votes for the Seminoles, but no chatter.

They seem to bring a lot to the table too:

Portal to Florida/Southern recruits and markets (hurts SEC)

Crippling blow to ACC

Excellent athletics

I think the major questions are academics and geography.

FSU may not be AAU, but they are no Texas Tech, either.

What are the pros/cons i am missing on FSU?

I voted Texas.

 

big endowment? check

great high school football? check

big media markets? check

AAU? check

Top quality public school? check

good athletics? check

geographic fit? nope

 

 

I think the good outweighs the bad and they are the only school that is pretty much a slam dunk on 99% of the criteria.

god complex? check

conference killer? check

team player? nope

do not want

Oops. Forgot Notre Dame. I added it today.

Oh, I think that "getting in the way" and super-ceding the NCAA is exactly what Delany would prefer doing. Especially if it means more money and control. Besides, wouldn't a 4-pod system have to have multiple post-season games anyway?

One thing that I've heard from a source I trust a lot is that Kansas and wait for it........Mizzou aren't out of consideration.

 

They don't want to take Duke. They will if they have to but they would much rather have a big, public, flagship University.

 

Let’s add Virginia, North Carolina, Kansas, and Mizzou and call it a day…….

 

B1G West

 

1. Nebraska

2. Iowa

3. Wisconsin

4. Minnesota

5. Kansas

6. Missouri

7. Illinois

8. Northwestern

9. Purdue

 

 

B1G East

 

1. Indiana

2. Michigan

3. Michigan State

4. Ohio State

5. Penn State

6. Rutgers

7. Maryland

8. Virginia

9. North Carolina

I like your teams, but how about this for divisions:

B1G West

Nebraska

Kansas

Missouri

Iowa

Minnesota

Wisconsin

B1G Central

Michigan

Michigan State

Northwestern

Illinois

Purdue

Indiana

B1G East

Ohio State

Penn State

Rutgers

Maryland

Virginia

North Carolina

Five Divisional Games, and two each from the other two divisions.

The Conference Playoff would be the three division winners plus a wildcard. Three huge games in December $$$ and essentially the B1G would own part of the playoff system.

I voted Kansas. I know it doesn't make sense in terms of Market, but I would like to have at least one Big 8 partner back. And they are AAU. Could create a reason to bring Missery in as well.

Which school would you MOST like to see join the B1G?

I figured this issue was now dead but apparently they could still be looking at it:

 

McMurphy spoke to league commissioner Jim Delany, who said changing the division names is an option when Maryland and Rutgers join the conference for the 2014 season. The Big Ten will also have to decide on the makeup of its divisions and scheduling, but there might not be a more divisive issue than those division names.

 

“Obviously, we got some acceptance [with Legends and Leaders], but not as much as we would have liked,” Delany said. "... I think on the other hand, we said we would test market it, and we have for a couple of years. We have the opportunity to look at it again. I’m sure we will. Whether or not we change or not is to be determined. I don’t have any presumption that we’ll change on it, but that doesn’t mean we’re not looking at it.

 

 

“I don’t think when you try to build something, lead some organization, you don’t want to be tone deaf. But it’s not up for vote every week.”

I think this is about as much indication as we can hope for that the names will change. Delany very obviously does not like to be second-guessed. He also doen't like to tip his hand. While these tendencies can be annoying, he is obviously one of the best at what he does (see Dan Beebe).

 

And I do hate the names. Hard to keep straight, and really that should be the most important function of the names.