Conference Realignment Updates

Donate To GopherHole

Ope3 said:
In the end though, I could see the odd team out being perfectly happy with a week of rest to get ready for the College Football Playoff, especially if they get the 5 seed in the current proposed format.
Click to expand...
A conference title still means something, in my opinion.
I hope that co-titles are brought back
 


PMWinSTP said:
You do that with protected rival games. We can debate the number of matchups should be protected, and who those top rivals are for each school. I think it should be three, and I would add Mich.
Click to expand...
Why should it be 3? Only Iowa wanted that. Penn St is quite adamant that it should be Zero.
 

Some guy said:
A conference title still means something, in my opinion.
I hope that co-titles are brought back
Click to expand...

It does to me too.

However. I can also see a situation in which a Team going to the College Football Playoff with banged up stars being fine with sitting out a week when it's now possibly going to take 17-18 games to win the Whole Bowl of Tostitos.
 


Ope3 said:
Why should it be 3? Only Iowa wanted that. Penn St is quite adamant that it should be Zero.
Click to expand...
Honestly if it was going to be 3 I would prefer all of the following for the gophers (in order)
Nebraska
Northwestern
Purdue
Illinois
 

Ope3 said:
It does to me too.

However. I can also see a situation in which a Team going to the College Football Playoff with banged up stars being fine with sitting out a week when it's now possibly going to take 17-18 games to win the Whole Bowl of Tostitos.
Click to expand...
I could see 12-0 5 seed team hanging a banner that says undefeated big ten season

But I think an unbeaten season should count as a championship officially
 

mngolf said:
I've thought this for awhile
Click to expand...

look, I think Swaim is completely unreliable as a source of any actual information. he is all about the "hot take" - throw crap into a rotary fan and watch the feces fly.

as much as some people rip Greg Flugaur, I think Flugaur does have at least some sources of information - or at least people who are willing to leak info to him on occasion.

so the B1G may see A&M as a possible future option. but I would not base that on anything Swaim has to say.
 

Ope3 said:
Exactly, Divisions are not necessary to balance the conference schedule.

I mentioned it ad nauseum in other threads, but NO BIG 10 School want's to get stuck in a Division with with Ohio St & Michigan.

Nobody wants to play them every year, except the 2 schools themselves and Michigan St is good with playing Michigan annually.

Nobody wants them to be blocking their path to the Big 10 Championship, including Ohio St & Michigan. If they both are still one of the 2 best teams in terms of record, there will be a re-match.

If Minnesota was in a Divisions/Scheduling pod with Iowa, Wisconsin, Michigan & Michigan St, it would be unequitable for the Gophers based on historical performance.

Lack of Divisions provides more flexibility. It provides more cross regional scheduling inventory. It's what FOX/NBC/Peacock/CBS want, are paying for and they have it.

Adding 2 more teams to the Conference to get to 20 does not change that equation in the slightest in my opinion. Maybe 24 would.

The major sea change could be what Some Guy's nightmare has been: A 3-way Unbeaten Tie. I suppose a massive 4-6 way tie for 2nd with a convoluted Tie-breaker which hinders a team from making the College Football Playoff could also shake things up.
Click to expand...

Sure....nobody wants to be in a division with Michigan or Ohio State. But Penn State is rarely a slouch and neither is Oregon. USC still brings in high end talent....and chances are that when the conference expands again....there will probably be at least one other NC contending program brought in. It's not going to be a cake walk for any team regardless of whether they attempt divisions again or stick with none.
 



short ornery norwegian said:
look, I think Swaim is completely unreliable as a source of any actual information. he is all about the "hot take" - throw crap into a rotary fan and watch the feces fly.

as much as some people rip Greg Flugaur, I think Flugaur does have at least some sources of information - or at least people who are willing to leak info to him on occasion.

so the B1G may see A&M as a possible future option. but I would not base that on anything Swaim has to say.
Click to expand...
B1G would like being in Texas. A&m doesn't like being with UT and is an alliance member.

And for scheduling, I see B1G=NFC. SEC=AFC.
 

stocker08 said:
Sure....nobody wants to be in a division with Michigan or Ohio State. But Penn State is rarely a slouch and neither is Oregon. USC still brings in high end talent....and chances are that when the conference expands again....there will probably be at least one other NC contending program brought in. It's not going to be a cake walk for any team regardless of whether they attempt divisions again or stick with none.
Click to expand...
I can assure you Penn St does not want any part of being in a Division with Michigan or Ohio State.

Division-less = flexibility.
 

PMWinSTP said:
You do that with protected rival games. We can debate the number of matchups should be protected, and who those top rivals are for each school. I think it should be three, and I would add Mich.
Click to expand...

I think that the Big Ten did a good job with how they set things up moving forward. No complaints from me.
 

Ope3 said:
I can assure you Penn St does not want any part of being in a Division with Michigan or Ohio State.

Division-less = flexibility.
Click to expand...

Yet in the majority of years, they'll likely have one or the other on the schedule anyways. Maybe they roll a year with neither.....but again....Oregon has been consistently very good for a while and USC is still a helmet school. I'm not so sure that the Big Ten is going to remain as a two team league.
 



Ope3 said:
I totally get it will be less equitable. TV/Streamers don't care. Each team gets their 0-3 protected rivals and you rotate through the rest. That's as equitable as it will get.

It's all relative. Michigan State getting tagged with playing Ohio State & Penn St ever year in addition to their rival Michigan was inequitable. Going forward, they won't.
Click to expand...
The media contracts are multi-year huge $$ deals. They're not going to alter their bids based on whether there are divisions or not. With 20 teams that included ND they will get more $$ than they know what to do with. The divisions would also likely eliminate the need for protected games, so the impact on how often Michigan plays USC or OSU plays Oregon etc. would probably be zero. You would play every non-division team every 3 years at a minimum.
 

Ope3 said:
Why should it be 3? Only Iowa wanted that. Penn St is quite adamant that it should be Zero.
Click to expand...
Probably because Penn State really has no rivals in the B1G. Even Nebraska has built a decent rivalry with Minnesota and Iowa.
 

stocker08 said:
Yet in the majority of years, they'll likely have one or the other on the schedule anyways. Maybe they roll a year with neither.
Click to expand...
If Penn St had one or the other every year, that means there would be several years with they have BOTH. That's the point of contention.

It can still happen in the future, but doing a quick scan of the current schedule it's not going to happen through 2028.

stocker08 said:
.Oregon has been consistently very good for a while and USC is still a helmet school. I'm not so sure that the Big Ten is going to remain as a two team league.
Click to expand...
True, but that has nothing to do with the scheduling. Division-less equals flexibility.
 

disco said:
Probably because Penn State really has no rivals in the B1G. Even Nebraska has built a decent rivalry with Minnesota and Iowa.
Click to expand...
Yes. So why should Penn St be locked in to playing 3 teams annually when they don't want to?

I'm completely fine with the 0-3 protected rivalry schematic. Everybody got what they wanted in the end.
 

Some guy said:
Honestly if it was going to be 3 I would prefer all of the following for the gophers (in order)
Nebraska
Northwestern
Purdue
Illinois
Click to expand...
It would enhance their chance in the W-L record over the current set up. Not so great for in stadium revenue though.
 


Ope3 said:
Why should it be 3? Only Iowa wanted that. Penn St is quite adamant that it should be Zero.
Click to expand...
Agree it is harder for the more recently added teams, but the others can fairly easily list three that are historically important. Another option would be having it "up to three" yearly rival games. Where are you getting only Iowa wanted it?
 

PMWinSTP said:
Agree it is harder for the more recently added teams, but the others can fairly easily list three that are historically important. Another option would be having it "up to three" yearly rival games. Where are you getting only Iowa wanted it?
Click to expand...
Because Iowa is currently the only team with 3 protected rivals (Minn-Wis-Neb).

Everybody else currently has 2, 1 or 0.
 

Ope3 said:
If Penn St had one or the other every year, that means there would be several years with they have BOTH. That's the point of contention.

It can still happen in the future, but doing a quick scan of the current schedule it's not going to happen through 2028.


True, but that has nothing to do with the scheduling. Division-less equals flexibility.
Click to expand...

Also means unbalanced scheduling.
 

short ornery norwegian said:
look, I think Swaim is completely unreliable as a source of any actual information. he is all about the "hot take" - throw crap into a rotary fan and watch the feces fly.

as much as some people rip Greg Flugaur, I think Flugaur does have at least some sources of information - or at least people who are willing to leak info to him on occasion.

so the B1G may see A&M as a possible future option. but I would not base that on anything Swaim has to say.
Click to expand...
I think they would be pretty down the list as well.
 

Some guy said:
MN Nebraska games get bigger crowds than Mn Mi games
Click to expand...

Since Iowa & Wisconsin were not mentioned, I took your post below to indicate you were eliminating those 2. My bad, if you meant as a 3rd team in addition to the Hawkeyes or Badgers.

I don't take anything for granted any more, even though it should be a GIVEN. I never thought the Little Brown Jug game would be discontinued to begin with. Now that it's been an interrupted rivalry from time to time, I'm ok with it not being annual.


Some guy said:
Honestly if it was going to be 3 I would prefer all of the following for the gophers (in order)
Nebraska
Northwestern
Purdue
Illinois
 

stocker08 said:
Also means unbalanced scheduling.
Click to expand...

It's balanced just fine now. Teams play 0-3 teams they want annually. The rest roughly equal, 2-3 times in a 6 year cycle. If they add more teams it will be 2-3 times in a 7-8 year cycle.
 

Ope3 said:
It's balanced just fine now. Teams play 0-3 teams they want annually. The rest roughly equal, 2-3 times in a 6 year cycle. If they add more teams it will be 2-3 times in a 7-8 year cycle.
Click to expand...

The point is......as you've stated.......there will be years when teams land far tougher schedules than other teams in the conference. Two five team divisions playing all nine other teams creates balance and would end up with the best team from each playing in the championship. While the current plan with 18 teams is not necessarily bad on that standpoint.....this would be better, no question.
 

stocker08 said:
The point is......as you've stated.......there will be years when teams land far tougher schedules than other teams in the conference. Two five team divisions playing all nine other teams creates balance and would end up with the best team from each playing in the championship. While the current plan with 18 teams is not necessarily bad on that standpoint.....this would be better, no question.
Click to expand...
It's not balanced if the other Division of 10 teams has 2 or more better teams. The goal of balance is unobtainable short of a complete round robin schedule. Teams wanted 0-3 locked in opponents based on personal preference.

Across the board on the P4 Conferences (Big 10-ACC-SEC-Big 12) they were ditched. From the rest, the AAC, CUSA, Mtn West & MAC also went Division-less. Only the SWAC & Sun Belt have kept them.

Again, I am in favor of Big 10 Divisions, but they are gone. There is no evidence they will come back soon.
 

Ope3 said:
It's not balanced if the other Division of 10 teams has 2 or more better teams. The goal of balance is unobtainable short of a complete round robin schedule. Teams wanted 0-3 locked in opponents based on personal preference.

Across the board on the P4 Conferences (Big 10-ACC-SEC-Big 12) they were ditched. From the rest, the AAC, CUSA, Mtn West & MAC also went Division-less. Only the SWAC & Sun Belt have kept them.

Again, I am in favor of Big 10 Divisions, but they are gone. There is no evidence they will come back soon.
Click to expand...

Right....short of a round robin. Breaking into two ten team divisions that alternate year to year with the top team representing in the championship is the closest thing to that....when there are this many teams in the conference. And again.... I'm not for doing two divisions with the 18 team league. At 20 teams, it makes all sorts of sense.
 


I don't know if they go divisions or not, but if you don't you need a semi-final game.
With 20 teams you'll have too many tied teams for a logical tie breaker.
 

You must log in or register to reply here.



Top Bottom