A 16 team conference

[MrGopher]

Just wondering how you think the best way to structure a 16 team football conference in terms of divisions, schedules, championship games.

Two divisions of 8? Four of 4?

Eight conference games or nine?

Do we play 7 games in the division and only one (maybe two) outside?!? With four or three out-of-conference games?

It seems to me that 16 schools is just too many to schedule for a 12 game college football season. Prove me wrong, fellas.

 

[howeda7]

Just wondering how you think the best way to structure a 16 team football conference in terms of divisions, schedules, championship games.

Two divisions of 8? Four of 4?

Eight conference games or nine?

Do we play 7 games in the division and only one (maybe two) outside?!? With four or three out-of-conference games?

It seems to me that 16 schools is just too many to schedule for a 12 game college football season. Prove me wrong, fellas.

Almost certainly two 8 team divisions. And no matter where you draw the line, it's almost certain you will have to split up at least 1 current rivalary. Therefore, I'd expect an expansion to 9 conference games, playing your 7 divisional opponents, 1 permanent oppenent in the other division and 1 rotating game in the other division on a two-year cycle. That means however, that you'd play teams in the other divison only 2 out of every 14 years. That seems ridiculous too.

 

[2727Gopher]

Almost certainly two 8 team divisions. And no matter where you draw the line, it's almost certain you will have to split up at least 1 current rivalary. Therefore, I'd expect an expansion to 9 conference games, playing your 7 divisional opponents, 1 permanent oppenent in the other division and 1 rotating game in the other division on a two-year cycle. That means however, that you'd play teams in the other divison only 2 out of every 14 years. That seems ridiculous too.

I can't see that happening. If we go to 16 teams, it would be two 8 team divisions with only 8 conference games. You'd only play one team in the other division, and you wouldn't be able to protect that game, so it would rotate constantly, meaning you'd go 14 years without playing a team since you'd probably play a team home one year and then away the next before rotating to the next team. I hate that arrangement, but that's how it would work.

I don't want expansion to happen. If it does, I want it to be as few teams as possible. I know that it's almost certain to happen, but I can hold out hope until it becomes official.

 

[RodentRampage]

With 16 teams, you don't have a conference with two divisions, you have a superconference (we'd really need to invent a new word for it) with two conferences. The divisions would become to isolated from each other, they would become in effect, two different conferences.

We'd be playing 7 games in the the division, and probably two from the other conference, and three non-conference games. That would mean that you would play each team from the other conference once every 4 years, and see them at home once every 8 years. Tell me that really counts as being in the same conference.

 

[GoGophers2005]

What about 15 teams with 3 divisions? To me that would make it easier to divide up the teams. The big ten has also said that a big ten championship isn't necessarily going to be in the cards. If there does happen to be a championship game in the big ten why not do a two week playoff within the big ten? Take the 3 division winners plus a wild card. 3 total games vs.1. Talk about tv ratings going through the roof.

 

[RodentRampage]

Anything other than two divisions would require that the NCAA change their rules. A championship game is allowed, a championship tournament is not. I don't see schools pushing for such a change, and no conference would go to more than two divisions without it.

 

[GoAUpher]

Anything other than two divisions would require that the NCAA change their rules. A championship game is allowed, a championship tournament is not. I don't see schools pushing for such a change, and no conference would go to more than two divisions without it.

Hmm...unless someone could devise a way to have 4 pods without the play-off style conference championship. Don't look at me btw, I already tried and failed to come up with a 4 pod system that made sense.

 

[howeda7]

If the schools added are Syracuse, Pitt, ND, Mizzou and Nebraska, I see the two divisions being fairly straight-forward:

East: Syracuse, Pitt, Penn State, Michigan, Michigan State, Indiana, Purdue, ND

West: Nebraska, Mizzou, Iowa, MN, Wiscy, Illinois, Northwestern, OSU

This keeps a reasonable balance in football. It splits along timezones except for OSU and it keeps all rivalaries intact EXCEPT OSU-Michigan. Which is why I think they'd push for there to be one permanent rival in the other division. And if you re-configure to keep OSU and Michigan together, you'd likely have to split up Indiana and Purdue or NW and Illinois, etc.

 

[GoGophers2005]

Anything other than two divisions would require that the NCAA change their rules. A championship game is allowed, a championship tournament is not. I don't see schools pushing for such a change, and no conference would go to more than two divisions without it.

You mean like they do in basketball? Remember there wasn't such a thing before 1997 in college basketball. And until 10 years ago there wasn't such a thing as a conference championship in football. The Big Ten expansion might be the reason the NCAA will allow a conference tourney, albeit a mini tourney.
I have a hard time believing that the NCAA would turn its back on a for sure money maker.

 

[RodentRampage]

I think that OSU and Michigan are the 800 lb gorilla, their placement preferences will probably win out. A 16 team conference is too large to have protected rivalries across divisions. And OSU - Michigan is a pretty big TV draw.

 

[howeda7]

I think that OSU and Michigan are the 800 lb gorilla, their placement preferences will probably win out. A 16 team conference is too large to have protected rivalries across divisions. And OSU - Michigan is a pretty big TV draw.

You might be right. But I cannot see having OSU, Michigan, ND and PSU all in the same division either. It would be like the Big 12 is now. By that logic, either OSU or ND has to be in the other division. You could swap OSU and ND from the allignment I have above, but then you're breaking up ND and Michigan, ND and Purdue and ND and Michigan State, etc. Also, the east division would be the stronger basketball division. Having OSU in the West would help even that out a lot more then ND.

Breaking up OSU and Michigan would be sad. But they're not natural rivals nor are they really all that heated in the sports other then football. Gaining ND-Michigan as a conference game, along with games like OSU-Nebraska and ND-Penn State would more then make up for it. But if they can find a way to protect the rivalry while in different divisons, that's good too.

 

[Inigo Montoya]

Breaking up OSU and Michigan would be sad. But they're not natural rivals nor are they really all that heated in the sports other then football. Gaining ND-Michigan as a conference game, along with games like OSU-Nebraska and ND-Penn State would more then make up for it. But if they can find a way to protect the rivalry while in different divisons, that's good too.

Wrong Answer !!! Why are is there any talk of conference realignment in the first place? Money, that's why. What makes the money? Football. Ohio State will never, ever be placed in a division opposite Michigan. People live and die that rivalry 365 days a year.

The Big (insert new integer here) would be best served, football wise, having OSU, Michigan, Penn State + or - Notre Dame in the same division. Why? Better assurance that new conference will get 2 teams into the BCS bowl series. Plus there would be higher profile inter-divisional games, better TV ratings = better ad revenue. Plus, if you are a Gopher fan you want those teams opposite us.

 

[RodentRampage]

You mean like they do in basketball? Remember there wasn't such a thing before 1997 in college basketball. And until 10 years ago there wasn't such a thing as a conference championship in football. The Big Ten expansion might be the reason the NCAA will allow a conference tourney, albeit a mini tourney.
I have a hard time believing that the NCAA would turn its back on a for sure money maker.

That is what they allow in baseball. They do not allow it in football. It doesn't matter what they might do in football someday, they don't allow it now.