Mega-conferences = Mediocrity?

[Bradr]

I had a thought here, and haven't seen it posted elsewhere. (But that doesn't mean much with how many posts there have been lately)

The most popular teams are also the ones with the history of the most success. As teams are more successful, they become more popular. As teams are less successful, they become less popular. If you are unsuccessful for too long, people will start to lose interest.

So if mega-conferences form, each of which has the best teams, some of those teams have to lose. If you put Florida, USC, Texas, and Ohio State into a hypothetical 4 man conference, someone is going to always lose at least 2 games. Thats a .500 record. You do that for too many years and you begin losing relevancy.

The way I see it is if these big conferences form, and they have the best teams, eventually some of those teams are going to be average. In 15 or 20 years when a new generation is watching college football, all they are going to know is that team x loses half their games on a regular basis. Maybe they were one of the greats in the past, but not anymore.

With all the talk going on, a Big 10 with Nebraska, Ohio State, Penn State, Michigan, Wisconsin, Iowa, and possibly Notre Dame and Texas is a meat grinder. Some of those teams are guaranteed losing at least 3-4 games. All have a history, but put them all together and someone has to be in last place every year.

So, do you think mega conference expansion is going to hurt college football by lessening the ability of teams to have winning records? There's a reason 50 some-odd teams would get left out of the 4 mega conferences - because they were the ones padding everyone else's statistics.

 

[billdozer15]

I had a thought here, and haven't seen it posted elsewhere. (But that doesn't mean much with how many posts there have been lately)

The most popular teams are also the ones with the history of the most success. As teams are more successful, they become more popular. As teams are less successful, they become less popular. If you are unsuccessful for too long, people will start to lose interest.

So if mega-conferences form, each of which has the best teams, some of those teams have to lose. If you put Florida, USC, Texas, and Ohio State into a hypothetical 4 man conference, someone is going to always lose at least 2 games. Thats a .500 record. You do that for too many years and you begin losing relevancy.

The way I see it is if these big conferences form, and they have the best teams, eventually some of those teams are going to be average. In 15 or 20 years when a new generation is watching college football, all they are going to know is that team x loses half their games on a regular basis. Maybe they were one of the greats in the past, but not anymore.

With all the talk going on, a Big 10 with Nebraska, Ohio State, Penn State, Michigan, Wisconsin, Iowa, and possibly Notre Dame and Texas is a meat grinder. Some of those teams are guaranteed losing at least 3-4 games. All have a history, but put them all together and someone has to be in last place every year.

So, do you think mega conference expansion is going to hurt college football by lessening the ability of teams to have winning records? There's a reason 50 some-odd teams would get left out of the 4 mega conferences - because they were the ones padding everyone else's statistics.

I fear that a little bit as well, however I think it may actually provide more parity. The meat grinder will not just be for NU, it will also be a meat grinder for all schools. The days of undefeated seasons will become even more rare.

 

[deedsker15]

or actually more likely...it you can escape your conference that is

 

[bbeerma2]

Notre Dame's independent plan all becomes clear!

 

[junior4949]

I had a thought here, and haven't seen it posted elsewhere. (But that doesn't mean much with how many posts there have been lately)

The most popular teams are also the ones with the history of the most success. As teams are more successful, they become more popular. As teams are less successful, they become less popular. If you are unsuccessful for too long, people will start to lose interest.

So if mega-conferences form, each of which has the best teams, some of those teams have to lose. If you put Florida, USC, Texas, and Ohio State into a hypothetical 4 man conference, someone is going to always lose at least 2 games. Thats a .500 record. You do that for too many years and you begin losing relevancy.

The way I see it is if these big conferences form, and they have the best teams, eventually some of those teams are going to be average. In 15 or 20 years when a new generation is watching college football, all they are going to know is that team x loses half their games on a regular basis. Maybe they were one of the greats in the past, but not anymore.

With all the talk going on, a Big 10 with Nebraska, Ohio State, Penn State, Michigan, Wisconsin, Iowa, and possibly Notre Dame and Texas is a meat grinder. Some of those teams are guaranteed losing at least 3-4 games. All have a history, but put them all together and someone has to be in last place every year.

So, do you think mega conference expansion is going to hurt college football by lessening the ability of teams to have winning records? There's a reason 50 some-odd teams would get left out of the 4 mega conferences - because they were the ones padding everyone else's statistics.

From the Big 10 teams you listed, most of them already lose 3-4 games a season. Penn State in the past decade has averaged loseing 4.6 games per season. Wisconsin has lost 3 or more games every year except 1 in the past decade. Their average losses per year this decade is 4.3 games per year. Michigan has lost 3 or more games every year except 1 in the past decade. Their average losses per year this decade is 4.3 games per year. Iowa’s football record in the 2000 decade stands at 78-43 (.644) which means they on averae have lost 4.3 games per year as well.

Now, you tell me has this made any of those teams less popular?

 

[VA Husker Fan]

Beating a bunch of no-name teams is not impressive either, and playing South Dakota St isn't going to make going to the games more popular.

Everybody isn't going to play everybody in a 16 team conference. It's not going to be that unlikely for an unbeaten or 1 loss team to play a team with 2 or less losses in the conference championship.

Put another way, losing 3-4 NFL games is a good season, and such a team will be plenty popular. Fans' expectations will just have to adjust if the schedules are tougher.

 

[sd'sker]

nebraska spent too long at mediocrity and it almost seemed as if they would never return. i think it is just the nature of the game and in a 16 team conference, there can still be a horse race of 4-6 teams to win the conference championship, depending on schedules (that is, if teams have to play equally challenging schedules) and such.

 

[junior4949]

You bring up a good point which concerns me all the more. Like you said, 3-4 losses in the NFL is considered a great season. I really don't want college football to be anything like the NFL. It appears to me that we're gravitating more and more towards having the college game be like the NFL with regards to everyone chasing the money. Greed is what has brought our economy to its knees. I don't want that for college football.

 

[sd'sker]

You bring up a good point which concerns me all the more. Like you said, 3-4 losses in the NFL is considered a great season. I really don't want college football to be anything like the NFL. It appears to me that we're gravitating more and more towards having the college game be like the NFL with regards to everyone chasing the money. Greed is what has brought our economy to its knees. I don't want that for college football.

um hello, greed is good. ok, i really don't think that, but i also don't think this reconfiguration will be bad for football. in basketball i love the mid-major little guy, in football i hate it. and to me the problem with college football is the inclusion of all these former dII schools, the division is becoming too diluted and you only need to play one good team and one decent team to make it to the championship. i like when good teams play good teams, and hopefully we will have a more competitive league in this new reconfiguration, and the little teams will get squeezed out, there is just not enough room (except for maybe Appalachian state). what is going on in division 1 football is similar to what ruined boxing. boxing got too many divisions, and the sport was diluted with championship belts that no one could follow or care. we are getting to many minor teams and bowls and bcs games that don't matter. college football needs good teams to play each other that culminate in a four team playoff to win the conference and then a four team playoff amongst the conference champions to play for the national championship. (and the rest of the schools can still have their bowl games, including the losers of the conference championship playoff).

that was a bit of a rant and stream of conscious at that, but my point is that this reconfiguration might just add better competition, which the division needs, and less ooc powder puffs.