Georgia Tech to Big Ten rumors gaining a lot of steam

Donate To GopherHole
Iceland12 said:
It was a question about the Pac 12 membership, not the Big Ten.
Click to expand...

My answer applies regardless of Big East, Pac-12 or Big Ten. I don't think Boise State means much in the long run if it can't maintain the aura of a mid major team knocking on the door of the elite. Major conference membership with some seasons below expectations will cool them off. Washington State, just to the west of Idaho, has a good Pac-12 season now and then, but generally struggles on the field and at the gate while adding little as a media market. Boise State, from a media market standpoint, offers less and its national brand would get tarnished by regular middle of the pack or lower finishes. If the Pac-12 wants to add teams, it should look towards the Big 12 rather than to Boise State.
 

goldengophers said:
In an ideal world Nebraska, ND, and Pitt would've been added and we could've called it a day, what grinds my gears is these schools who don't fit the B1G or bring hockey.
Click to expand...
"Fit in the B1G" is a very subjective concept. This is about making money, so anyone that brings the league money "fits" according to the league presidents and Delaney.

And hockey is an afterthought in the rest of the country. I get that irks Minnesotans, but such is life.
 

dpodoll68 said:
Why do people say things like this? There is absolutely no way to prove or disprove it, by definition. I say it is feasible. So there.
Click to expand...

Anything is feasible. IT'S ALL ABOUT MONEY!!!
 

Sports_Realist said:
My answer applies regardless of 1. Big East, Pac-12 or Big Ten. I don't think Boise State means much in the long run if it can't maintain the aura of a mid major team knocking on the door of the elite. Major conference membership with some seasons below expectations will cool them off. Washington State, just to the west of Idaho, has a good Pac-12 season now and then, but generally struggles on the field and at the gate while adding little as a media market. Boise State, from a media market standpoint, offers less and its national brand would get tarnished by regular middle of the pack or lower finishes. 2. If the Pac-12 wants to add teams, it should look towards the Big 12 rather than to Boise State.
Click to expand...

1. You've haven't seen the projected Big East membership for 2013 - 2015 then?

2. So you agree with most other posters on this thread..
 

dpodoll68 said:
Why do people say things like this? There is absolutely no way to prove or disprove it, by definition. I say it is feasible. So there.
Click to expand...

It's my opinion. My feeling is Boise State, as it stands, can only sustain its current run within the given set of circumstances and that it will struggly mightily in a bigger body of water. Reduce the success and the outside factors that fuel it, such as recruiting, will falter. If you or anyone else disagree, no problem. I welcome arguments to the contrary.

Also, the Big East is indeed just a glorified C-USA or MWC now. I ought to have remembered that when posting although taking the top teams from those conferences and putting them in one league with Temple and UConn may cut into the success level of teams, Boise State and others, used to bigger seasons. This is apples and oranges to some extent, but look at the comedown TCU has had in just one Big 12 season compared to much of the past decade.
 


dpodoll68 said:
How do you suppose those rivalries came to be? They didn't just develop in a vacuum. Sure, rivalries with a geographical proximity basis are more prevalent, but Notre Dame and USC, or Notre Dame and Stanford, or Notre Dame and Boston College, or the Cowboys and Redskins, or the Lakers and Celtics, etc., etc. aren't exactly located near each other. New rivalries will develop and change over time, and they will replace the old rivalries or add onto them. Change is always tough, but it will work out. Would I be disappointed if Becky or Herky left the conference? Sure, but I know something would prop up to replace them (also, no law exists stating we couldn't still play them), and I'll still sleep ok.
Click to expand...


I am more so speaking to the expectation of instant gratification that seems to be ingrained in a lot of sports fans. Attendance is lacking at a lot of schools who normally pack their stadiums. And yes, the economic downturn probably plays into a lot of that. Head coaches are being fired after 1 or 2 seasons. It's more the fact that schools that switch conferences are giving up their traditional rivalries. Sure, they started out of nothing, but they have been going on for a long time. Fans who have been die-hards for decades now have to get used to playing new opponents. That is a lot to ask of a fan. Sure, loyalty to your team as opposed to who you play comes first, but the emotional investment will have a different taste.

It just seems that with all of the conference expansion and construction of crazy on-campus facilities, that this would look like another economic bubble waiting to burst. But instead of the bubble being a depletion of private donor funds, it would be the fans saying enough is enough. It is just an interesting thought to how all of this effects fans in the short term. As you said, long term people will still able to sleep at night. This is only sports after all, and it still won't solve world hunger.
 

Gopherprof said:
"Fit in the B1G" is a very subjective concept. This is about making money, so anyone that brings the league money "fits" according to the league presidents and Delaney.

And hockey is an afterthought in the rest of the country. I get that irks Minnesotans, but such is life.
Click to expand...
It could be a slippery slope though, chasing cash seems like the right decision but could be detrimental. Say what you will about hockey but there is a reason for the B1G hockey conference.
 

The Pac-12 doesn't feel compelled to do anything, they are so insulated from all the madness they can skate by. If they can't add Texas and co. they aren't making a move. They will have a spot at the table even if they don't go to 16.

Going to 18 would kill me, absolutely kill me. The only way I die without a ton of regret is if UNC/UVA/GT/ND join. I hated 14 but understood it. 16 I can accept because it looks like the way things are going, but 18 would just be ridiculous.
 

Gopherprof said:
"Fit in the B1G" is a very subjective concept. This is about making money, so anyone that brings the league money "fits" according to the league presidents and Delaney.

And hockey is an afterthought in the rest of the country. I get that irks Minnesotans, but such is life.
Click to expand...

I hate to say it, but I don't know very many casual hockey fans. I'd almost be willing to say more people in Minnesota don't watch 1 hockey game a year than watch it. Hockey fans are very loyal, but there aren't too many of them in my opinion. I know I am about to be ripped, but in my closest 50 friends I'd consider 5-10 of them hockey fans.
 



Sports_Realist said:
It's my opinion. My feeling is Boise State, as it stands, can only sustain its current run within the given set of circumstances and that it will struggly mightily in a bigger body of water. Reduce the success and the outside factors that fuel it, such as recruiting, will falter. If you or anyone else disagree, no problem. I welcome arguments to the contrary.

Also, the Big East is indeed just a glorified C-USA or MWC now. I ought to have remembered that when posting although taking the top teams from those conferences and putting them in one league with Temple and UConn may cut into the success level of teams, Boise State and others, used to bigger seasons. This is apples and oranges to some extent, but look at the comedown TCU has had in just one Big 12 season compared to much of the past decade.
Click to expand...

Kind of true. TCU though is facing a MAJOR upgrade in competition. Boise State is heading to a conference without Rutgers, Pitt, Syracuse, West Virginia and Lousiville. Instead of them they they SDSU, Houston, East Carolina, Navy, Central Florida, Memphis and Tulane. They can drop a Non-conference BCS opponent and have a pretty comparable football schedule to what they have now.
 

Iceland12 said:
Kind of true. TCU though is facing a MAJOR upgrade in competition. Boise State is heading to a conference without Rutgers, Pitt, Syracuse, West Virginia and Lousiville. Instead of them they they SDSU, Houston, East Carolina, Navy, Central Florida, Memphis and Tulane. They can drop a Non-conference BCS opponent and have a pretty comparable football schedule to what they have now.
Click to expand...
Boise is going to stay in the MWC.
 


I think the bigger issue that may be driving all this is Delaney's desire to take control of the National Champ away from the NCAA. This way we can have 4 Super conferences that all play 10-11 league games, a champ game and the 4 league champs play for the National Championship...all money controlled by the 4 super conferences without NCAA involvement. NCAA can have the also rans and their championship game...plus the bowls get to pick from the non-champ playoff teams.

Think of how much money the 3 game playoff alone is worth...plus the conference games and champ to the 4 conferences....Big Ten, Pac 16, Big 16 & Big SEC (SEC, Big east, acc, conf usa leftovers). These 64 schools would all but guarantee the financial viability of their athletic programs for years to come.
 




goldengophers said:
It could be a slippery slope though, chasing cash seems like the right decision but could be detrimental. Say what you will about hockey but there is a reason for the B1G hockey conference.
Click to expand...
The reason is that if 6 teams in the league carry the sport, they HAVE to carry it. Now, do they expect to make money off of airing hockey games on BTN? Sure. But this is all about football and television; everything else is just icing on the cake.
 

tjgopher said:
I don't think Virginia Tech is coming into the Big Ten. VT doesn't bring a single new TV set, nor is it a member of the AAU.
Click to expand...

There's certainly no reason to bring VT over UVa. Complete market overlap. Academics are not close, and UVa is better in almost every sport except football. And once Beamer retires, that may be a wash.
 

tjgopher said:
In addition, to me, one of the most interesting aspects of this will be scheduling and divisions with a 16-team conference. Let's say there are two divisions of eight teams each (hopefully divided by geography). If the Big Ten continues to play 8 conference games in football, then that likely means we will play our 7 divisional foes every year, which would leave only one cross divisional team per season (presumedly on an equal rotation). With 8 teams in the opposite division, it would mean we would get to see Maryland and Ohio State and Rutgers and Penn State play in Minneapolis ONCE every 16 years! Unless there is some other way to go about it.
Click to expand...

With 16 teams they could do four 4-team pods.
Play the 3 other teams in your pod every year.
Play half of the other 12 teams every other year, 9 game schedule.
Would play every team home/away in any three year span.
 

I'd love to see a 12 game B1G schedule if the conference got that big. I would be absolutely ok never playing a school with the word Dakota in it ever again.
 

GopherinPhilly said:
I think the bigger issue that may be driving all this is Delaney's desire to take control of the National Champ away from the NCAA. This way we can have 4 Super conferences that all play 10-11 league games, a champ game and the 4 league champs play for the National Championship...all money controlled by the 4 super conferences without NCAA involvement. NCAA can have the also rans and their championship game...plus the bowls get to pick from the non-champ playoff teams.

Think of how much money the 3 game playoff alone is worth...plus the conference games and champ to the 4 conferences....Big Ten, Pac 16, Big 16 & Big ACC (Big east, acc, conf usa leftovers). These 64 schools would all but guarantee the financial viability of their athletic programs for years to come.
Click to expand...

No SEC?
 

dpodoll68 said:
How do you suppose those rivalries came to be? They didn't just develop in a vacuum. Sure, rivalries with a geographical proximity basis are more prevalent, but Notre Dame and USC, or Notre Dame and Stanford, or Notre Dame and Boston College, or the Cowboys and Redskins, or the Lakers and Celtics, etc., etc. aren't exactly located near each other. New rivalries will develop and change over time, and they will replace the old rivalries or add onto them. Change is always tough, but it will work out. Would I be disappointed if Becky or Herky left the conference? Sure, but I know something would prop up to replace them (also, no law exists stating we couldn't still play them), and I'll still sleep ok.
Click to expand...

I don't entirely disagree but I don't think it is nearly as easy as you think or new rivalries to form. It's not like they're going to make a new ax or slab of bacon or something. We've all seen this happen recently and it feels hollow and forced. We don't need trophy or rivalry games just because. Back when the original rivalries were formed a pig or ax was stolen or wagered and nobody batted an eye, nowadays it's a crime and people would go to jail so a company is commissioned to create a new trophy and it ends up looking like the Iowa/Iowa State trophy.
 

spackler said:
With 16 teams they could do four 4-team pods.
Play the 3 other teams in your pod every year.
Play half of the other 12 teams every other year, 9 game schedule.
Would play every team home/away in any three year span.
Click to expand...

That would be the best for scheduling for sure. How would you do a conference championship though?
 


GophersInIowa said:
No SEC?
Click to expand...

Sorry...edited my mistake. I think the SEC loses some core members to Big 12 and Pac 12 before adding some of the remaining teams.

Possible the Big 12 doesn't get moving and the SEC takes a dominant position and Big 12 picks up scraps...but TX has a bunch of power with their network. The SEC may dominate the TV channels on Saturdays in the south...it just doesn't represent as many TVs as what the Big Ten and Pac 12(16) have or even Texas's Longhorn station.

Now have OK, Kstate and Kansas move to the Pac 16 and all of a sudden the SEC moves up the ladder, picking up IState, Okstate. Incidently, if this were to happen, TX to the Big Ten is automatic. Merge the two networks into BigTenNetwork-East & BigTenNetwork-West or even 3 with East, South & Midwest. Will need more than one channel for major sports coverage anyways.

Either way, the Big East, ACC, SEC and Big 12 have to find a way to become to 16 team conferences to match the Big Ten and Pac 12(16). TX and ND to the Big Ten still make the best sense money wise. Add those two teams to our TV negotiations (plus the two we already added), especially with 10 Conference football games per season and our deal is worth more than twice what it is now and the Big Ten network profits will more than double outside of the espn/abc deal. That equals more than 50 mil per school per year. Game changer for Big Ten Athletic Depts.
 



mckerney said:
Division champions play in 4 team tourney.
Click to expand...

I can't see that happening.

One way to do it would be that they would have two divisions like they do now and only use the pods for scheduling purposes. Or you can have 4 divisions and just take the two teams with the best record.
 

Ski U Mah Gopher said:
If the NCAA doesn't allow a tourney, the team with the best record from the interlocking pods would advance to the championship.
Click to expand...

It would have to be this. Otherwise no one would be able to schedule a 12th game on the chance that they would be playing in the conference semi-finals.

The interlocking pod concept would work out pretty well though, a lot of possibilities for B1G championship games.
 

I liked the pod idea even when the conference went to 12 teams. With pods, you play your own group every year and rotate another, with a division of rotating double pod sets sending teams to the championship game. Perhaps too confusing, but one way to not alienate teams from one another. To me, the biggest danger with going to 14, 16, or 18 teams is losing that close knit conference "feel" and this really happens if you start going as many years in between games as we have seen with, say, Indiana, recently. It also would minimize the chance you get into boasting about my division is better than your division stuff that really becomes conferences within a conference. Really want to maintain some sort of 'family' feel within the conference and the pod thing, if done right, could perhaps do it.
 

One thing I'd like to add to the 4-pack super conference is a playoff between the four last place teams. But instead of having the winners advance, you have the two losers play with the head coach's job on the line with the losing coach getting the boot. Think how much fun it would be to see those coaches coaching like hell to save their job. Viewership would be unbelievable for what could be a couple of 0-14 teams. Yeah, I'm not serious but fun to think about the possibilities.
 

I don't see why we don't add San Diego state? Makes so much sense geographically. :rolleyes:
 

You must log in or register to reply here.



Top Bottom