More conference expansion talk

[JTrain]

This is really depressing, not so much the thought of Nebraska being left out (which I really doubt would happen anyway) but the fact that college football (specifically these several conferences) is on the verge of trading so much great history, tradition, rivalry, etc. for more money. Sixteen-team conferences make very little sense in terms of fairness and integrity of the game. Why have 16 teams in a sport where you only play eight conference games? It's nonsense. Even 12 is a few too many. Ideally you have 10-team conferences and everybody plays each other every year, and then the championship is already decided based on conference record and tiebreakers (Pac-10). That's what a conference should be. Name me any other sport where teams don't get to match up with everyone in their conference at least once every season. Now we have the possibility of one team not seeing another for 3-4 years (with 16-team conferences). It's ridiculous, and goes against not only college football's storied history but sports history in general.

[zoogs]

I haven't been taking this conference expansion talk seriously. Should I be? Did anything change?

[Enhance]

One thing you have to remember though, JTrain, is that football is arguably the most physically demanding sport in the world. The seasons are short because the time commitment is demanding, the physical toll is demanding, and you can't play multiple games in a week because it takes a very long time to prepare for a football game. Baseball, basketball, etc. are different because the overall preparation isn't the same and because the physical demands aren't anywhere near the level of football. That's the best reason to explain why football seasons are set up so oddly. A team just simply can't play that many games.

 

And zoogies hit the nail on the head. I'm not listening to anything about expansion until Dan Beebe or the Big 10 commish comes out and says "hey, we're going to seriously look at these teams right here and we're going to choose *insert number* to offer to join our conference". Until then, everything else is just speculation and what people are hearing, with little to no factual base.

[sd'sker]

One thing you have to remember though, JTrain, is that football is arguably the most physically demanding sport in the world. The seasons are short because the time commitment is demanding, the physical toll is demanding, and you can't play multiple games in a week because it takes a very long time to prepare for a football game. Baseball, basketball, etc. are different because the overall preparation isn't the same and because the physical demands aren't anywhere near the level of football. That's the best reason to explain why football seasons are set up so oddly. A team just simply can't play that many games.

 

And zoogies hit the nail on the head. I'm not listening to anything about expansion until Dan Beebe or the Big 10 commish comes out and says "hey, we're going to seriously look at these teams right here and we're going to choose *insert number* to offer to join our conference". Until then, everything else is just speculation and what people are hearing, with little to no factual base.

this is probably stupid, but with a 16 team conference, they could have four 4 team divisions, each team in the division plays twice (home and home) and instead of non-conference games, they could play cross-divisional games. and at the end of the season, the conference could have a 4 game playoff. just a thought.

[Enhance]

One thing you have to remember though, JTrain, is that football is arguably the most physically demanding sport in the world. The seasons are short because the time commitment is demanding, the physical toll is demanding, and you can't play multiple games in a week because it takes a very long time to prepare for a football game. Baseball, basketball, etc. are different because the overall preparation isn't the same and because the physical demands aren't anywhere near the level of football. That's the best reason to explain why football seasons are set up so oddly. A team just simply can't play that many games.

 

And zoogies hit the nail on the head. I'm not listening to anything about expansion until Dan Beebe or the Big 10 commish comes out and says "hey, we're going to seriously look at these teams right here and we're going to choose *insert number* to offer to join our conference". Until then, everything else is just speculation and what people are hearing, with little to no factual base.

this is probably stupid, but with a 16 team conference, they could have four 4 team divisions, each team in the division plays twice (home and home) and instead of non-conference games, they could play cross-divisional games. and at the end of the season, the conference could have a 4 game playoff. just a thought.

I've seen that brought up before. It's not a stupid thought, honestly. The only issue I foresee is that it changes the entire landscape of the college game, making it more like the NFL. Something like that would have to be adopted by all the conferences, and all the conferences would have to expand to that size in order for it to be fair to all concerned. Otherwise, you have one conference playing an NFL type schedule and everybody else doing something different. I don't see it happening unless everybody changed.

[sd'sker]

One thing you have to remember though, JTrain, is that football is arguably the most physically demanding sport in the world. The seasons are short because the time commitment is demanding, the physical toll is demanding, and you can't play multiple games in a week because it takes a very long time to prepare for a football game. Baseball, basketball, etc. are different because the overall preparation isn't the same and because the physical demands aren't anywhere near the level of football. That's the best reason to explain why football seasons are set up so oddly. A team just simply can't play that many games.

 

And zoogies hit the nail on the head. I'm not listening to anything about expansion until Dan Beebe or the Big 10 commish comes out and says "hey, we're going to seriously look at these teams right here and we're going to choose *insert number* to offer to join our conference". Until then, everything else is just speculation and what people are hearing, with little to no factual base.

this is probably stupid, but with a 16 team conference, they could have four 4 team divisions, each team in the division plays twice (home and home) and instead of non-conference games, they could play cross-divisional games. and at the end of the season, the conference could have a 4 game playoff. just a thought.

I've seen that brought up before. It's not a stupid thought, honestly. The only issue I foresee is that it changes the entire landscape of the college game, making it more like the NFL. Something like that would have to be adopted by all the conferences, and all the conferences would have to expand to that size in order for it to be fair to all concerned. Otherwise, you have one conference playing an NFL type schedule and everybody else doing something different. I don't see it happening unless everybody changed.

i agree to some extent. at least all the major conferences would have to do it that way. div. 1 football is already a two tiered system, and this would only greaten that gap.

[RedDenver]

This is really depressing, not so much the thought of Nebraska being left out (which I really doubt would happen anyway) but the fact that college football (specifically these several conferences) is on the verge of trading so much great history, tradition, rivalry, etc. for more money. Sixteen-team conferences make very little sense in terms of fairness and integrity of the game. Why have 16 teams in a sport where you only play eight conference games? It's nonsense. Even 12 is a few too many. Ideally you have 10-team conferences and everybody plays each other every year, and then the championship is already decided based on conference record and tiebreakers (Pac-10). That's what a conference should be. Name me any other sport where teams don't get to match up with everyone in their conference at least once every season. Now we have the possibility of one team not seeing another for 3-4 years (with 16-team conferences). It's ridiculous, and goes against not only college football's storied history but sports history in general.

Actually you could play 12 conference games and then a championship under the current rules. So it's conceivable that you could split a 16 team conference in half and play all 7 other teams in your division and half the other division (11 games), still have 1 non-conference game, and a conference championship before the bowl games. That's a much more appealing season to me than having 2-4 patsies every year which basically eliminates a third of the meaningful games each season.

 

Another scenario my buddy thought of was to have 7 games within your conference division and 4 games against another 16 team conference rotating home and away each year and then conferences every other year. Definitely makes for more exciting games.

[JTrain]

One thing you have to remember though, JTrain, is that football is arguably the most physically demanding sport in the world. The seasons are short because the time commitment is demanding, the physical toll is demanding, and you can't play multiple games in a week because it takes a very long time to prepare for a football game. Baseball, basketball, etc. are different because the overall preparation isn't the same and because the physical demands aren't anywhere near the level of football. That's the best reason to explain why football seasons are set up so oddly. A team just simply can't play that many games.

 

And zoogies hit the nail on the head. I'm not listening to anything about expansion until Dan Beebe or the Big 10 commish comes out and says "hey, we're going to seriously look at these teams right here and we're going to choose *insert number* to offer to join our conference". Until then, everything else is just speculation and what people are hearing, with little to no factual base.

 

I wasn't advocating playing more than 12 games (in fact, I kinda liked it when it was 11). I was saying conferences should stay at 10 teams, with nine conference games per season. The spiritual core (for lack of a better term) of the conference (in any college sport) comes from the fact that every team plays every other team. Also, then there is no reason to have a silly conference title game (which is rarely about anything other than money).

 

With 16 team conferences, you lose many of the smaller rivalries, because like NU-OU, teams placed in separate divisions won't see each other every year. The bigger the conference, the more consecutive seasons a team could go without even playing someone from their own conference. Not to mention, these proposed realignments would completely destroy the core of many conferences that have been around for 50, 60 or more years. And all for money and trying to one-up the other conferences. Hopefully nothing will come of all this, but the more articles I see taking it seriously, the more I worry.

 

http://www.neworleans.com/sports/sports-blogs/ed-daniels/377198-conference-expansion-dominos-could-fall-for-lsu-tulane.html#nola377198.htm

[sd'sker]

One thing you have to remember though, JTrain, is that football is arguably the most physically demanding sport in the world. The seasons are short because the time commitment is demanding, the physical toll is demanding, and you can't play multiple games in a week because it takes a very long time to prepare for a football game. Baseball, basketball, etc. are different because the overall preparation isn't the same and because the physical demands aren't anywhere near the level of football. That's the best reason to explain why football seasons are set up so oddly. A team just simply can't play that many games.

 

And zoogies hit the nail on the head. I'm not listening to anything about expansion until Dan Beebe or the Big 10 commish comes out and says "hey, we're going to seriously look at these teams right here and we're going to choose *insert number* to offer to join our conference". Until then, everything else is just speculation and what people are hearing, with little to no factual base.

 

I wasn't advocating playing more than 12 games (in fact, I kinda liked it when it was 11). I was saying conferences should stay at 10 teams, with nine conference games per season. The spiritual core (for lack of a better term) of the conference (in any college sport) comes from the fact that every team plays every other team. Also, then there is no reason to have a silly conference title game (which is rarely about anything other than money).

 

With 16 team conferences, you lose many of the smaller rivalries, because like NU-OU, teams placed in separate divisions won't see each other every year. The bigger the conference, the more consecutive seasons a team could go without even playing someone from their own conference. Not to mention, these proposed realignments would completely destroy the core of many conferences that have been around for 50, 60 or more years. And all for money and trying to one-up the other conferences. Hopefully nothing will come of all this, but the more articles I see taking it seriously, the more I worry.

 

http://www.neworleans.com/sports/sports-blogs/ed-daniels/377198-conference-expansion-dominos-could-fall-for-lsu-tulane.html#nola377198.htm

i agree that conference championships are largely just for money, but they did have an unintended positive consequence. the Big XII and SEC are relevant for almost a month longer than the Pac-10 and Big 11. that has to help with the pollsters and getting more big XII and sec teams into the MNC. it is not a reason to keep doing it, and will be an obsolete advantage with other conferences having championships, but i think it has helped keep the Big XII season more relevant for longer.

 

edit: it is one of those things where everyone should do it, or no one should do it. especially when teams lose out on bcs games because of it. or earn them and then do not have to play a conf. champ.

[T_O_Bull]

This is really depressing, not so much the thought of Nebraska being left out (which I really doubt would happen anyway) but the fact that college football (specifically these several conferences) is on the verge of trading so much great history, tradition, rivalry, etc. for more money. Sixteen-team conferences make very little sense in terms of fairness and integrity of the game. Why have 16 teams in a sport where you only play eight conference games? It's nonsense. Even 12 is a few too many. Ideally you have 10-team conferences and everybody plays each other every year, and then the championship is already decided based on conference record and tiebreakers (Pac-10). That's what a conference should be. Name me any other sport where teams don't get to match up with everyone in their conference at least once every season. Now we have the possibility of one team not seeing another for 3-4 years (with 16-team conferences). It's ridiculous, and goes against not only college football's storied history but sports history in general.

[bshirt]

This is really depressing, not so much the thought of Nebraska being left out (which I really doubt would happen anyway) but the fact that college football (specifically these several conferences) is on the verge of trading so much great history, tradition, rivalry, etc. for more money. Sixteen-team conferences make very little sense in terms of fairness and integrity of the game. Why have 16 teams in a sport where you only play eight conference games? It's nonsense. Even 12 is a few too many. Ideally you have 10-team conferences and everybody plays each other every year, and then the championship is already decided based on conference record and tiebreakers (Pac-10). That's what a conference should be. Name me any other sport where teams don't get to match up with everyone in their conference at least once every season. Now we have the possibility of one team not seeing another for 3-4 years (with 16-team conferences). It's ridiculous, and goes against not only college football's storied history but sports history in general.

Actually you could play 12 conference games and then a championship under the current rules. So it's conceivable that you could split a 16 team conference in half and play all 7 other teams in your division and half the other division (11 games), still have 1 non-conference game, and a conference championship before the bowl games. That's a much more appealing season to me than having 2-4 patsies every year which basically eliminates a third of the meaningful games each season.

 

Another scenario my buddy thought of was to have 7 games within your conference division and 4 games against another 16 team conference rotating home and away each year and then conferences every other year. Definitely makes for more exciting games.

 

That's a fine idea!

 

I agree that three or four patsy games a year are three or four too many. They're a waste of time and barely rival practice. Unless one lives in Lincoln I can hardly believe people pay the big bucks to go see them. They do though. I'm for any reasonable change that dumps for "real" games.

[knapplc]

I've been saying for years that college football's current setup is unnecessarily cumbersome. I see this whole realignment talk as a step toward paring out some of the weaker schools. There is simply no reason to have 120 teams in one division. These "patsy games" people are deriding would go away if we cut the top division down to 60 or 40 teams.

 

The genie is already out of the bottle with the crazy dollar figures teams are spending on coaches and facilities. Momentum built with the advent of the Big 10 Network and the SEC's mega-deal with ESPN. As the dollars get bigger and bigger teams like Nebraska and their comparators are going to be forced to consolidate or be left behind. Once that consolidation process reaches critical mass, the money simply won't be there for the smaller schools, and inevitably contraction will take place.

 

The more I hear about the moves and the money involved, the more sure I am that we're going to see a HUGE change in the structure of college football's top division.

[sd'sker]

I've been saying for years that college football's current setup is unnecessarily cumbersome. I see this whole realignment talk as a step toward paring out some of the weaker schools. There is simply no reason to have 120 teams in one division. These "patsy games" people are deriding would go away if we cut the top division down to 60 or 40 teams.

 

The genie is already out of the bottle with the crazy dollar figures teams are spending on coaches and facilities. Momentum built with the advent of the Big 10 Network and the SEC's mega-deal with ESPN. As the dollars get bigger and bigger teams like Nebraska and their comparators are going to be forced to consolidate or be left behind. Once that consolidation process reaches critical mass, the money simply won't be there for the smaller schools, and inevitably contraction will take place.

 

The more I hear about the moves and the money involved, the more sure I am that we're going to see a HUGE change in the structure of college football's top division.

the trend has been to let more schools into div. I, (like south dakota state or the missouri valley teams)which is crazy.

 

also, don't you think some 'big' (or at least established div. I schools) will get left out? like baylor, or iowa state, or other similarly weak schools in big conferences?

[knapplc]

I've been saying for years that college football's current setup is unnecessarily cumbersome. I see this whole realignment talk as a step toward paring out some of the weaker schools. There is simply no reason to have 120 teams in one division. These "patsy games" people are deriding would go away if we cut the top division down to 60 or 40 teams.

 

The genie is already out of the bottle with the crazy dollar figures teams are spending on coaches and facilities. Momentum built with the advent of the Big 10 Network and the SEC's mega-deal with ESPN. As the dollars get bigger and bigger teams like Nebraska and their comparators are going to be forced to consolidate or be left behind. Once that consolidation process reaches critical mass, the money simply won't be there for the smaller schools, and inevitably contraction will take place.

 

The more I hear about the moves and the money involved, the more sure I am that we're going to see a HUGE change in the structure of college football's top division.

the trend has been to let more schools into div. I, (like south dakota state or the missouri valley teams)which is crazy.

 

also, don't you think some 'big' (or at least established div. I schools) will get left out? like baylor, or iowa state, or other similarly weak schools in big conferences?

That trend will likely decrease soon. I'm expecting this big shift this decade, or within 20 years, tops. The money just can't be ignored, and no matter how many Middle Tennessee States you allow into the top division, they cannot compete with a Nebraska or a Texas. Not possible.

 

And yes, absolutely some schools will get left out, even some in major conferences. There's a kind of school that has dedicated massive resources over decades to football and has built themselves into a position that leaves them in a position of power in this scenario. There are also schools that "have a football team." Those schools will be left behind.

 

We all love college football because it's a great sport. It just so happens to command billions of dollars in revenue, and whether we like it or not, that money is too great to be left to its own devices.

[bbeerma2]

I think it makes much more sense to split a 16-team conference into 4-team subdivisions. Then you play a rotating 3-year selection of the other subdivisions, your subdivision and 1 protected game for a conference like the Big Ten. What is nice, is that essentially splits the conference down the middle with 2 4-team subdivisions paired on a rotating schedule to make up each years division sending one school to the championship game. The mathematics behind it are a bit cumbersome but easily doable. The thing is you need to schedule so that teams get to protect their guaranteed games with the +1 game and the division alignment. They are limited to 8 conference games plus the conference championship game. No increases necessary over the 12-team format.

 

Group 1:

Minnesota

Wisconsin

Iowa

 

Group 2:

Notre Dame if Applicable

Ohio State

Michigan

 

Group 3:

Michigan State

Penn State

 

Group 4:

Indiana

Purdue

Illinois

Northwestern

 

Protected:

Illinois - Indiana

Michigan - Michigan State

Notre Dame - Purdue

Ohio State - Penn State

 

Group 1 is a no-brainer. Protects all the current rivalries and makes scheduling much simpler.

 

Group 4 is not ideal, but protects the rivalries while opening other groups to create the right alignment for traditional rivalries.

 

Notre Dame would lose their protected rivalry with Michigan State sadly. There is not a very logical layout that would cause a year-in year-out game. This also produces one group which is sub-par to the others. The beauty of this is that the conference game eliminates the necessity for equally productive divisions when the weak subdivisions pair with any other given subdivision. It may devalue the conference championship at times, but protects the integrity of the tradition. Furthermore, when Notre Dame's group is paired with the Purdue group, it allows them to play MSU. Another cycle pairing them with MSU's group leads to 2 out of every 3 years playing their current active rivalry. If Pittsburgh is added and joins the Notre Dame group, it would be a strong group, but also protects this active Notre Dame rivalry. In order to make this a strong layout, and protect the championship game, 2 quality teams need to be added to Group 3. Even though it is not geographically friendly,

 

I think Nebraska joining Group 3 would create the ideal layout in terms of team strength, group strength and division strength (which protects the championship game's draw). Ideally you would also add a strong team to the Minnesota-Wisconsin-Iowa group. Possibly Missouri?

 

Dealing with uneven geographical pairings can be eliminated by stipulating that travel expenses come out of the Television revenue pot before the revenue is split evenly among the teams. Cap cost to eliminate abuse.

 

I believe this type of format is much more appealing to the Big Ten than to create 8-team divisions that are not dynamic.

 

Note: All present protected games are included in this layout, so no protected games are lost from current Big 1T1en format

 

It also opens up new and interesting rivalries by allowing things like an Iowa-Nebraska protected game, and other possibilities from the open slots for current teams and added teams.