The Athletic: College football fans may need to get used to losing more often. Is anyone ready?

MisterGopher

Well-known member
Joined
Nov 12, 2008
Messages
448
Reaction score
263
Points
63
https://www.nytimes.com/athletic/6741983/2025/10/23/college-football-coach-firings-success/
An LSU fan, head in his hands, reacts to the action during the second half of the Tigers' loss to Ole Miss earlier this season.

In the SEC, where several teams expect 10-win seasons every year, the math just doesn't work out. Justin Ford / Getty Images

Almost overnight, 8-4 became the new 10-2 in college football, and it is really messing with everyone involved.

Especially in the SEC, where they’re finding out being NFL Lite might not be as cool as it sounds.

It’s getting harder to win. Meanwhile, patience for perceived underperformance is as thin as ever. Expectations and related decision-making have not adjusted to a world where many schools that were accustomed to being the baddest bully on the block moved into much tougher neighborhoods.

Former Big 12 commissioner Bob Bowlsby predicted this problem during the last round of conference realignment, when Texas and Oklahoma jumped from the Big 12 to the SEC and USC, UCLA, Oregon and Washington went from the Pac-12 to the Big Ten.

“I think there are some in the larger conferences that will clearly be marginalized, and the money won’t be worth it because they’ll be traditional losers on a regular basis,” Bowlsby told the Associated Press in 2023. “And I think there will be institutions that have been traditional winners that will turn into institutions that are playing in the middle of the pack most of the time, that’s going to be a big adjustment.”

What Bowlsby missed was how the transfer portal and name, image and likeness compensation would create a path for the sport’s traditional have-nots to change their lots in life. In a system where players have almost total agency over where they play, prestige and legacy get nudged aside by money on the decision tree, and a lot more schools can get into the game.
:
Turns out, Bowlsby was right. And it’s no surprise college football is grappling with adjusted standards for success. It’s only been the old way for about 100 years, with a few slight modifications.

The last couple of years have been a shock to the system, and it’s pretty clear that few were prepared for the consequences.
 




For every winner there has to be a loser. Boggles my mind how people couldn't figure out that if you add 4 super teams to an existing conference they can't all remain winners.
Correct. It's a math problem. There are going to be 81 conference wins and 81 conference losses.
 


For every winner there has to be a loser. Boggles my mind how people couldn't figure out that if you add 4 super teams to an existing conference they can't all remain winners.
Exactly! With the "real" power conferences growing, and with the college football playoff growing right along with them, you can just see it playing out right before your eyes. Instead of needing to win a conference and go undefeated or close to it, there is more parity forming and now what used to be considered "decent" seasons will be playoff worthy. I wonder how well this will do to keep the fat cats happy?
 


Yep. I said the same about Texas and Oklahoma. Stay in the Big 12 and get a near guaranteed path to the playoff most years. Go to the SEC and you're another team.
 

Just last year the 12 teams combined for 20 losses heading into the playoffs. After the playoffs they had 31 or 2.5 per team. 2/3 had 2+ losses going in and Champion had 2 losses in the end.

One 13-0
One 12-1
Two 11-1
Five 11-2
Two 10-2
One 10-3

One of those teams already fired a coach this year and there could be more.
 



For every winner there has to be a loser. Boggles my mind how people couldn't figure out that if you add 4 super teams to an existing conference they can't all remain winners.
Been posting this very point for several years. I like the teams added thus far for the B1G. My advocating for Stanford and Cal to join sort of adds a couple mid-pack programs but brings along some very strong institutions (research, endowments) into the BTAA.
 
Last edited:

Been posting this very point for several years. I like the teams added this far for the B1G. My advocating for Stanford and Cal to join sort of adds a couple mid-pack programs but brings along some very strong institutions (research, endowments) into the BTAA.
I think the Big 10 needs to get to at least 20 teams. 4 divisions of 5 teams. 4 division winners playoff for the conference title. That would keep more teams engaged with something to play for. A division consisting of the Gophs, Nebraska, Iowa, Wisconsin and Illinois. That sounds one heck of a lot better than competing with 17 other teams for 2 spots. Also takes schedule imbalance out of the equation mostly. Play the other 4 in your division and crossover with one other rotating division.
 

Losing more often means we will just fine. Ever since I have been little we have been losing.
 

I think the Big 10 needs to get to at least 20 teams. 4 divisions of 5 teams. 4 division winners playoff for the conference title. That would keep more teams engaged with something to play for. A division consisting of the Gophs, Nebraska, Iowa, Wisconsin and Illinois. That sounds one heck of a lot better than competing with 17 other teams for 2 spots. Also takes schedule imbalance out of the equation mostly. Play the other 4 in your division and crossover with one other rotating division.

As much as I like smaller divisions, the conference championship won't be expanded IMO since the CFP expanded and might expand more. If anything, conference championships have become meaningless and even detrimental for teams' CFP chances.
 



I think the Big 10 needs to get to at least 20 teams. 4 divisions of 5 teams. 4 division winners playoff for the conference title. That would keep more teams engaged with something to play for. A division consisting of the Gophs, Nebraska, Iowa, Wisconsin and Illinois. That sounds one heck of a lot better than competing with 17 other teams for 2 spots. Also takes schedule imbalance out of the equation mostly. Play the other 4 in your division and crossover with one other rotating division.
Agree on 20, but not a fan of divisions.
 

As much as I like smaller divisions, the conference championship won't be expanded IMO since the CFP expanded and might expand more. If anything, conference championships have become meaningless and even detrimental for teams' CFP chances.
Yeah, conference championships didn't seem to mean much last year. Those teams had to play an extra game, but the winner at least got a bye. The team that loses and still made the playoffs gets screwed.

Of the 4 conference champs, not a single one advanced past the first matchup they played.
 


For every winner there has to be a loser. Boggles my mind how people couldn't figure out that if you add 4 super teams to an existing conference they can't all remain winners.

Hasn't worked out so badly for us so far. We were middle-of-the-pack before NIL and Revenue Sharing and are still middle-of-the-pack. I'm all right with it. Play 12 games, usually play a 13th, and usually have a winning season. Now, if Fleck leaves, I'll be worried.
 


Horse is out of the barn for the Big XII now but it’s too bad they couldn’t have focused on building up their conference and brand rather than letting the top schools break off. It was probably because there are not enough big media markets in those states.
 




Top Bottom