B1G 20 team setup

Donate To GopherHole
stocker08 said:
I simply meant if/when the Big Ten expands to 20. I'd prefer to stay at 16....but 20 seems inevitable.
Click to expand...
I’m not sure it is because to add 4 more the deal has to go up by 320million to break even.
Why is 20 more inevitable than 18 or 22?
 

Some guy said:
I’m not sure it is because to add 4 more the deal has to go up by 320million to break even.
Why is 20 more inevitable than 18 or 22?
Click to expand...

Do you think conference realignment is going to stop at 16? I don't.
 



stocker08 said:
Why are you pestering me with a stupid question?
Click to expand...
Because you asked me a question?

You asked if I thought the big ten was done expanding.
I think yes because individual programs can’t raise the value of the tv contract by more than the piece of the pie they’d cut out save Notre Dame or some SEC programs.

But I have been wrong about expansion before and perhaps inventory of the same product raises the value by more than what conventional Wisdom would say an Individual program could.

7 (home) Washington games aren’t worth 80+ million
7 (home) cal games aren’t worth 80+ million.

But maybe 28 big ten games are worth 320 million.
But if that is the case it is just as likely that 56 big ten games (by adding to 24 teams) are worth 640 million.

If the league expands to 20, I have a hard time seeing it stopping at 20. You said 20 seems inevitable. To me 20 makes no sense.
Either individual programs are what drives additional revenue and it’s going to be 18 when notre dame and a partner come…or it’s going to be 24+ teams once the ACC implodes.

15 years from now, I see 16, 18, and 24+ as all more likely than 20.
 


Ope3 said:
Paying them/Big 10 enough might get Ohio St & Michigan to like it (or dislike it less).

Also they might not be thrilled with playing each other back-to-back either, enough to move it and start a new tradition.

You said it yourself in Post #33 that "it kinda de-emphasizes The Game". This is just a possible solution.
Click to expand...
Just not going to happen.
 


PMWinSTP said:
18 seems like an odd number. My feeling is B1G goes from 16 to 20 if it expands further.
Click to expand...
20 is an odd number of a conference too. 24 would be a much easier number to divide into 4 divisions that are logical for scheduling.
 

Some guy said:
Because you asked me a question?

You asked if I thought the big ten was done expanding.
I think yes because individual programs can’t raise the value of the tv contract by more than the piece of the pie they’d cut out save Notre Dame or some SEC programs.

But I have been wrong about expansion before and perhaps inventory of the same product raises the value by more than what conventional Wisdom would say an Individual program could.

7 (home) Washington games aren’t worth 80+ million
7 (home) cal games aren’t worth 80+ million.

But maybe 28 big ten games are worth 320 million.
But if that is the case it is just as likely that 56 big ten games (by adding to 24 teams) are worth 640 million.

If the league expands to 20, I have a hard time seeing it stopping at 20. You said 20 seems inevitable. To me 20 makes no sense.
Either individual programs are what drives additional revenue and it’s going to be 18 when notre dame and a partner come…or it’s going to be 24+ teams once the ACC implodes.

15 years from now, I see 16, 18, and 24+ as all more likely than 20.
Click to expand...

You don't see why 20 would make sense as a target point rather than 18? I can't help you if you can't understand how that would make sense from a divisional and scheduling standpoint. 18 makes absolutely no sense. The OPs post lays out how a 20 team conference could work. I think it makes a ton of sense. I'm betting the people in charge of making these expansion decisions see this as the most obvious move assuming further expansion.
 



PMWinSTP said:
18 seems like an odd number. My feeling is B1G goes from 16 to 20 if it expands further.
Click to expand...

Everybody understands why 20 would be the obvious move except for a special select few.
 


Some guy said:
If 20 is the obvious move then 24 is even more obvious for the same reasons
Click to expand...

Check out the OP....look at how scheduling could work with 20 teams....and then give me a breakdown of what it would look like under your 24 team proposition. Thanks.
 

stocker08 said:
Check out the OP....look at how scheduling could work with 20 teams....and then give me a breakdown of what it would look like under your 24 team proposition. Thanks.
Click to expand...
In a 20 team setup you can never have a week where all teams are playing a divisional game. Better with even numbered divisions IMO
Certainly possible as we have odd divisions right now.


The bigger thing though is profit. Nobody has convinced me why 20 teams cutting the pie 4 more ways makes the conference money. And if someone did I would be willing to bet the argument why 20 makes you more money than 16 is the same argument why 24 makes more money than 16.
If the reason to expand to 20 is money, why would they stop at 20?

If adding Stanford, cal, Washington, and notre dame adds value in 2026 or whenever they would be added…why would the conference not add Virginia, North Carolina, Florida state, Louisville in 2036 when the GOR is up.
20 is a pretty arbitrary endgame number is all I’m saying
 



Some guy said:
In a 20 team setup you can never have a week where all teams are playing a divisional game. Better with even numbered divisions IMO
Certainly possible as we have odd divisions right now.


The bigger thing though is profit. Nobody has convinced me why 20 teams cutting the pie 4 more ways makes the conference money. And if someone did I would be willing to bet the argument why 20 makes you more money than 16 is the same argument why 24 makes more money than 16.
If the reason to expand to 20 is money, why would they stop at 20?
Click to expand...

Why the hell would it matter if you couldn't have a week where all the teams are playing a divisional game. That's the stupidest argument against this that I've heard yet.

But you said that 18 or 24 makes more sense than 20. Lay out how the schedules work work under those conference sizes. The 20 team model makes perfect sense.
 

At the hockey game tonight.

Do any of these new schools play hockey?
 

stocker08 said:
Why the hell would it matter if you couldn't have a week where all the teams are playing a divisional game. That's the stupidest argument against this that I've heard yet.

But you said that 18 or 24 makes more sense than 20. Lay out how the schedules work work under those conference sizes. The 20 team model makes perfect sense.
Click to expand...
I didn’t say 18 or 24 makes more sense.

I said I personally think 24 makes more sense.
Play 5 in your division. Play one from each of the other 3 divisions for an 8 game schedule.
The conference side gets easier or harder to figure out which is the optimal number for scheduling depending on if people want to play 8, 9, 10, or 11-12 games

In a 20 team conference with 4 divisions, if the division championships actually mean something it will definitely be odd to have 20%’of the conference playing less important games the last week

If the conference wants 10 games as the new Fleck contract suggests then 20 is a difficult number to schedule depending on how they do it.


I said 18 makes more sense to me from a financial standpoint. If adding cal really adds value that means adding anyone from the pac, big 12 or ACC add value and it isn’t stopping at 20



Why are you so personally offended by this conversation. Calm down
 

A_Slab_of_Bacon said:
At the hockey game tonight.

Do any of these new schools play hockey?
Click to expand...
I think we can convince a couple to add it for both men and women. Washington is pretty hockey crazy with the Kraken. One of the LA schools would be great. Still can't figure out why Illinois and NW don't field teams.
 

Some guy said:
I didn’t say 18 or 24 makes more sense.

I said I personally think 24 makes more sense.
Play 5 in your division. Play one from each of the other 3 divisions for an 8 game schedule.
The conference side gets easier or harder to figure out which is the optimal number for scheduling depending on if people want to play 8, 9, 10, or 11-12 games

In a 20 team conference with 4 divisions, if the division championships actually mean something it will definitely be odd to have 20%’of the conference playing less important games the last week

If the conference wants 10 games as the new Fleck contract suggests then 20 is a difficult number to schedule depending on how they do it.


I said 18 makes more sense to me from a financial standpoint. If adding cal really adds value that means adding anyone from the pac, big 12 or ACC add value and it isn’t stopping at 20



Why are you so personally offended by this conversation. Calm down
Click to expand...

You said 18 or 24 is more likely. I disagree with that. And I'm not offended. I feel like you are trolling with this bit/playing intentionally dumb.

The scenario that you laid out with 24 teams is terrible. Going back to an eight game schedule after doing a nine game schedule with 14 teams is complete nonsense. Playing all the teams in your division and then one from each one of the other divisions is silly. You'd see each of the other teams in the conference once every six years....with the potential to catch them in the postseason.

18 doesn't make sense because you couldn't have four balanced divisions with that number. And two divisions wouldn't work as you'd have eight games just against your own every year. Even expanding the conference schedule to ten games would only allow for two crossovers....leaving a four and a half year gap between seeing certain teams on the other side ignoring any playoff situation.

Four pods of five (20 teams)....playing everyone in one other pod per year makes a TON of sense. Nine games. You see every team once every three years. NO UNBALANCED SCHEDULE with the other teams in your division as you'll all play the same conference foes every year.


Again....20 is the only logical endpoint without completely blowing it up.
 

stocker08 said:
You said 18 or 24 is more likely. I disagree with that. And I'm not offended. I feel like you are trolling with this bit/playing intentionally dumb.

The scenario that you laid out with 24 teams is terrible. Going back to an eight game schedule after doing a nine game schedule with 14 teams is complete nonsense. Playing all the teams in your division and then one from each one of the other divisions is silly. You'd see each of the other teams in the conference once every six years....with the potential to catch them in the postseason.

18 doesn't make sense because you couldn't have four balanced divisions with that number. And two divisions wouldn't work as you'd have eight games just against your own every year. Even expanding the conference schedule to ten games would only allow for two crossovers....leaving a four and a half year gap between seeing certain teams on the other side ignoring any playoff situation.

Four pods of five (20 teams)....playing everyone in one other pod per year makes a TON of sense. Nine games. You see every team once every three years. NO UNBALANCED SCHEDULE with the other teams in your division as you'll all play the same conference foes every year.


Again....20 is the only logical endpoint without completely blowing it up.
Click to expand...
I literally didn’t say 18 was more likely

Glad you’re so passionate about this 20 team deal

We are both speculating about stuff and for some reason you seem really fired up that my speculation that your speculation might not be the only way has you writing wall of Text paragraphs. Chill. It’s not that serious.
 
Last edited:

Some guy said:
I literally didn’t say 18 was more likely

Glad you’re so passionate about this 20 team deal

We are both speculating about stuff and for some reason you seem really fired up that my speculation that your speculation might not be the only way has you writing wall of Tex paragraphs. Chill. It’s not that serious.
Click to expand...

Sure you did.

Some guy said:
15 years from now, I see 16, 18, and 24+ as all more likely than 20.
Click to expand...

And I've always been against expanding further. I'm not for it. But I also see that conference realignment talks haven't really quieted down much. Sounds like talks are still going on behind the scenes. Notre Dame being forced into a conference is inevitable....and the Big Ten makes the most sense. Just don't see it stopping now.

At 20 teams....they could still manage to make things work. A balanced conference schedule with the rest of the teams in your division would actually be a good thing.
 

stocker08 said:
Sure you did.



And I've always been against expanding further. I'm not for it. But I also see that conference realignment talks haven't really quieted down much. Sounds like talks are still going on behind the scenes. Notre Dame being forced into a conference is inevitable....and the Big Ten makes the most sense. Just don't see it stopping now.

At 20 teams....they could still manage to make things work. A balanced conference schedule with the rest of the teams in your division would actually be a good thing.
Click to expand...
As a whole those options are more likely
Not individually, 20 or the field the field is more likely

Again you should calm down. Even if I did think 18 was more likely. You still are taking this a little too personally. What you and I say about conference expansion doesn’t really matter. Chill

The most likely thing in 2036 is probably actually 16
 

Some guy said:
As a whole those options are more likely
Not individually, 20 or the field the field is more likely

Again you should calm down. Even if I did think 18 was more likely. You still are taking this a little too personally. What you and I say about conference expansion doesn’t really matter. Chill

The most likely thing in 2036 is probably actually 16
Click to expand...

Does your computer analyze text and give you an approximation of calmness or something? You started asking me questions....and I answered with why I think 20 teams is the likely target. That's okay if you think it won't be 20. But you seem to be trying to convince me that it will be anything else...and it's a bit odd.
 

stocker08 said:
Does your computer analyze text and give you an approximation of calmness or something? You started asking me questions....and I answered with why I think 20 teams is the likely target. That's okay if you think it won't be 20. But you seem to be trying to convince me that it will be anything else...and it's a bit odd.
Click to expand...
No. You said 20.
And I said why not 18? 22? 24? And you responded like a middle school brat and then continued to get into this debate that you are mad about something. It’s quite comical.
stocker08 said:
Why are you pestering me with a stupid question?
Click to expand...
Sorry for pestering. You. Hope you have a good night
 

Some guy said:
No. You said 20.
And I said why not 18? 22? 24? And you responded like a middle school brat and then continued to get into this debate that you are mad about something. It’s quite comical.

Sorry for pestering. You. Hope you have a good night
Click to expand...

The OP suggested 20 and I agreed. Instead of giving your own assessment....you threw a temper tantrum about why it would be 18 or 24. But I think your goal was simply to be contrary. Bizarre.
 

PMWinSTP said:
Just not going to happen.
Click to expand...
I agree, probably not, unless they get sick of playing each other back-to-back weeks and a broadcast partner provides financial incentive.
 

Reasons 20 is the ideal number:

1. Gives you four divisions with 5 teams each.
2. Allows playing an entire separate division to get to 9 games total with same schedule for all teams.
3. Combining with another division every year to play for the championship varies the toughness of winning and gives teams a fighting chance to compete.
 

Otis said:
Reasons 20 is the ideal number:

1. Gives you four divisions with 5 teams each.
2. Allows playing an entire separate division to get to 9 games total with same schedule for all teams.
3. Combining with another division every year to play for the championship varies the toughness of winning and gives teams a fighting chance to compete.
Click to expand...
But all signs point to Zero Divisions beyond 2023.
 


You must log in or register to reply here.



Top Bottom