Jump to content


USC and UCLA to the B1G


Recommended Posts


21 minutes ago, nic said:

I am seeing ND, Stanford, Oregon and then let Washington join.

Oregon and Stanford have remained quiet, correct?

Not sure how schedules will play out. Probably protected rivalries or pods.


PODS:

PAC - USC, UCLA, Stanford, Washington, Oregon 

West - Nebraska, Iowa, Minnesota, Wisconsin, Northwestern

East - Penn State, Maryland, Rutgers, Purdue, Notre Dame

Midwest - Michigan, Michigan State, OSU, Illinois, Indiana 

 

...or protected Games:

Mich: OSU, MSU, Minn

ND: USC, Stanford, Purdue

NU: Wiscy, Iowa, Wash 

USC: UCLA, ND, PSU

OSU: Mich, Illinois, PSU

UCLA: USC, MSU, Washington 

Wiscy: Minn, NU, Oregon 

Minn: Wiscy, Mich, Iowa 

Wash: Oregon, NU, UCLA

Oregon: Wash, Stanford, Wisconsin

Stanford: ND, NW, Oregon 

Purdue: Indiana, ND, Rutgers

Indiana: Purdue, MSU, Maryland

Illinois: NW, OSU, Rutgers 

NW: Illinois, Stanford, Iowa

Maryland: PSU, Rutgers, Indiana

PSU: Maryland, OSU, USC

Rutgers: Maryland, Illinois, Purdue 

Iowa: NU, Minnesota, NW

MSU: Mich, UCLA, Indiana


Divions:

Old School: Indiana, Iowa, Illinois, Michigan, MSU, Minnesota,  OSU, NW, Wisconsin, Purdue 
Newbies: NU, PSU, Maryland, Rutgers, ND, USC, UCLA, Oregon, Washington, Stanford

 

I think divisions are out.  Probably out everywhere.

 

The three protected games seems to be the rage right now.  But I'm not sure they work with that many teams.  The idea is to protect the most important rivalries but still get to play everyone else every-other year.  I guess you could still do 4-5-5-5 with four protected games then play the other 15 teams every three years.  But that's basically a pods system.

 

I actually think the pods you posted look pretty good.  But I've been a fan of pods for awhile.

  • Plus1 1
Link to comment
5 minutes ago, RichardHangslow said:

Careful some guy named Toe on a internet message board might question if you have a screw loose.  I know you, like me are seeking out his validation...

 

I mean ... there does seem to be a pretty obvious distinction between teams that seem to be pretty likely candidates to be added and a team that had to back-door their way into a P5 conference in the first place and no one is talking about making another move.

  • Plus1 2
Link to comment

For as big and football-focused as the state of Texas is, there's really only two CFB teams that matter, and the ship has pretty much sailed on both of them. The next two biggest are both church-affiliated schools, and I don't see the Big Ten presidents going for any school in that category that isn't named Notre Dame.

Link to comment

I believe USC and UCLA asked to be members.  Not sure the Big Ten is sending out invitations yet.  Maybe it’s only a minor distinction but I think legally it’s important.  Big Ten is not wanting to be in the tampering business but sees itself open to considering offers.  I do think 2-4 more additions would really boost the Big Ten (time for a new league name too) in to top dog position in market strength / brand power.  SEC won’t sit still though. 
 

There are still some brand worthy schools to be had - FSU, Miami, Clemson, Ore, WU, ND, and UNC, and perhaps another dozen ???   It’s tough to say what schools cfb programs and fan bases are above the line.  
 

Imo, the upper limit # is probably around 64 but I can see the process ending up around 80.  Still too many but much better than 140ish.  There is big pot of $ but it can’t be split that many ways imo.  There are enough prime time players each year to earn big bucks for that many teams.  Just my sense of the macro economics of cfb at the top level.  

Link to comment
3 hours ago, RichardHangslow said:

Careful some guy named Toe on a internet message board might question if you have a screw loose.  I know you, like me are seeking out his validation...

He wouldn't be wrong and I have been accused of worse. :cowbell:

Link to comment
3 hours ago, Mavric said:

 

 I guess you could still do 4-5-5-5 with four protected games then play the other 15 teams every three years.  But that's basically a pods system.

 

I actually think the pods you posted look pretty good.  But I've been a fan of pods for awhile.

I put the divisions up to poke fun at the Big10. :D good point on the 4-5-5-5 being equivalent to the pods. I didn't think of that. I like the pods system too, and I can handle playing everyone every 3 years. That's better than it is now. ND would not like my pods though. 

 

The ND pod...because they are spoiled.:D

ND, USC, Stanford, Purdue, UCLA (pulled in for USC)

Link to comment

4 hours ago, 84HuskerLaw said:

I believe USC and UCLA asked to be members.  Not sure the Big Ten is sending out invitations yet.  Maybe it’s only a minor distinction but I think legally it’s important.  Big Ten is not wanting to be in the tampering business but sees itself open to considering offers.  I do think 2-4 more additions would really boost the Big Ten (time for a new league name too) in to top dog position in market strength / brand power.  SEC won’t sit still though. 
 

There are still some brand worthy schools to be had - FSU, Miami, Clemson, Ore, WU, ND, and UNC, and perhaps another dozen ???   It’s tough to say what schools cfb programs and fan bases are above the line.  
 

Imo, the upper limit # is probably around 64 but I can see the process ending up around 80.  Still too many but much better than 140ish.  There is big pot of $ but it can’t be split that many ways imo.  There are enough prime time players each year to earn big bucks for that many teams.  Just my sense of the macro economics of cfb at the top level.  

 

The ending number of 80 is way too big. It's way more likely to only be around 54-60. There's going to be some schools within the P5 on the outside looking in. With TV being the ones driving the boat. Why on God's earth does it make sense to take a ton of schools in the same areas? It doesn't. 

 

There are 4 schools I think are for sure screwed and have to be worried about what's going to happen with their institutions and programs. I think these 4 have to be 100 percent crapping themselves with all these expansion rumors etc.

 

Oregon State

Washington State

Kansas State

Iowa State

 

 

Link to comment
23 minutes ago, IgniteTheSpark said:

 

The ending number of 80 is way too big. It's way more likely to only be around 54-60. There's going to be some schools within the P5 on the outside looking in. With TV being the ones driving the boat. Why on God's earth does it make sense to take a ton of schools in the same areas? It doesn't. 

 

There are 4 schools I think are for sure screwed and have to be worried about what's going to happen with their institutions and programs. I think these 4 have to be 100 percent crapping themselves with all these expansion rumors etc.

 

Oregon State

Washington State

Kansas State

Iowa State

 

 

 

 

I'd add Colorado

  • Haha 1
Link to comment
1 hour ago, IgniteTheSpark said:

I think these 4 have to be 100 percent crapping themselves with all these expansion rumors etc.

 

Oregon State

Washington State

Kansas State

Iowa State

 

I would say that about pretty much everyone left in the Big 12. At this point their biggest brand for football is what, Oklahoma State? Cincinnati? I mean they're good teams, but not exactly valuable brands in the CFB world, right? And at this point, it's the brands that matter most, even more than geographical markets. (Being in a big cable TV market isn't as important in the streaming era. Maryland and Rutgers are lucky they got in when they did.)

Link to comment
  • Mavric changed the title to USC and UCLA to the B1G

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...