The Reason for 9 Big Ten Games

[Iceland12]

The Big Ten Network was about money. Expansion isn't about "natural fit" it's about money. Non- Conference games are about scheduling wins true, but they're also about money. That's why it's not just the "have not" Big Ten teams who have expressed strong interest in an extra Big Ten game. Michigan and Ohio State have complained about how much money they have to spend to get that extra "non-conference win".

Michigan is spending a million dollars to get San Diego State.

Wednesday, May 19, 2010
Michigan provides SDSU with big payoff
By Graham Watson

San Diego State’s recently announced 2011 game against Michigan will give coach Brady Hoke, a former Michigan assistant, a homecoming, but it will also secure the Aztecs one heck of a payday.

San Diego State athletic director Jim Sterk told the North County Times that the Aztecs would receive just over $1 million for the guarantee game, which is the largest single-game payout in school history.
"It was an opportunity we couldn't turn down," Sterk told the paper. "It's a good payday for us, and it's a good opponent for our team and fans. It's a win-win."

The money is much needed for a California state school that has struggled with its finances. The Aztecs had two junior college transfers -- Juan Bolanos and Riley Gauld -- who couldn’t enroll in January because the intersession classes they needed for eligibility were discontinued after California state budget cuts.

San Diego State has now completed its 2011 nonconference schedule, which includes Cal Poly at home on Sept. 3, Army on the road on Sept. 10 and Washington State on Sept. 17.

 

[gophmeister]

I am in complete agreement. I'd prefer to see Michigan this fall over UNI or USD.

 

[MrGopher]

I like the idea of 9 conference games. But I wouldn't take away a non-conference game to get it. I threw out this idea a while ago, but i'll put it out there again.

Whenever that day comes when we have a big ten championship game, why couldn't everyone play that week. The Championship would be a prime time, neutral site game. The earlier games would be the #2 teams from each division matching up. The #3 teams would do the same, and on down the line. One year these games would be played at the home sites of one division, and the other year at the other division's stadiums. This cuts back on the layoff between the last reg. season game and the bowl game. Would be another chance for schools to put more money in the coffers.

Admittedly there are a number of kinks to be worked out in that idea, but I think it's something worth considering.

 

[dpodoll68]

I like the idea of 9 conference games. But I wouldn't take away a non-conference game to get it. I threw out this idea a while ago, but i'll put it out there again.

Whenever that day comes when we have a big ten championship game, why couldn't everyone play that week. The Championship would be a prime time, neutral site game. The earlier games would be the #2 teams from each division matching up. The #3 teams would do the same, and on down the line. One year these games would be played at the home sites of one division, and the other year at the other division's stadiums. This cuts back on the layoff between the last reg. season game and the bowl game. Would be another chance for schools to put more money in the coffers.

Admittedly there are a number of kinks to be worked out in that idea, but I think it's something worth considering.

It's a good idea in theory, but you would have to get the NCAA to change the rule from 12 to 13 regular season games in order for it to happen. Since they just went up from 11 not that long ago, and their (B.S.) mantra is "taking students out of class less often", I don't think it would happen, at least not any time soon.

 

[RodentRampage]

It would require a major rule change to allow an "everybody plays" weekend. But even in the exceedingly unlikely event that they did allow it, it would have some problems. It would distract from the conference championship game, for one. And how appealing would it be for the two last-placed teams to face each other on the same weekend that the conference championship would be played?

 

[MrGopher]

It would require a major rule change to allow an "everybody plays" weekend. But even in the exceedingly unlikely event that they did allow it, it would have some problems. It would distract from the conference championship game, for one. And how appealing would it be for the two last-placed teams to face each other on the same weekend that the conference championship would be played?

I sort of see what you are saying, but I don't think it's as big of a deal as you make it seem.

There is other football games on BCS bowl days, including the rose bowl day...How dare they!?!
Other teams play when during the OhioSt.-Mich game...How dare they?!?

In terms of distraction, I would be more concerned with competing with the other conference championship games. Fans of individual big ten teams will always care about their team more than other teams. The national audience will certainly only care about the championship game....the other games wont distract.

The championship would be more like the crescendo, or the headliner, of the day-long-event as all the other minor games have been played.

I think for the fans of those lower teams, the appeal of seeing their team play another (likely competitive) game is higher than watching OSU beat up some other big ten team on ABC.

 

[RodentRampage]

There's less than zero chance that the NCAA would allow conference championships to turn into "everybody plays" weekends.

There wouldn't be a "crescendo", nothing would build up. Third-place games were dumped a long time ago, no one really cared. If people don't care about third-place games, are they going to care about 5th-place, 7th-place, 9th-place and 11th-place games?

The stadiums would be pretty much empty for everything but the conference championship game.

 

[MrGopher]

There's less than zero chance that the NCAA would allow conference championships to turn into "everybody plays" weekends.

There wouldn't be a "crescendo", nothing would build up. Third-place games were dumped a long time ago, no one really cared. If people don't care about third-place games, are they going to care about 5th-place, 7th-place, 9th-place and 11th-place games?

The stadiums would be pretty much empty for everything but the conference championship game.

Less than zero....right.

It's not really a third place game, or a fifth, or whatever. Its just another conference game against a team that we might not otherwise see (in a division alignment system) for possibly another few years.

The home sites would be decided in advance and would be part of standard season ticket packages. Why wouldn't anyone go? It counts as much as any other conference game. Or does your college football stamina completely max out after 12 games? Mine does not. The only thing that would account for lower attendance would be the lack of visiting fans making the trip (due to short notice).

 

[Goldmember]

My idea to solve this problem: Rather than more conference games, I would like to see all of the major conferences agree to a 2-game pre-conference series. Each team plays one game away and one at home as part of the series. If the Pac-Ten and Big Ten expand to 12 teams this would create a 60-game series among the ACC, SEC, Big Ten, Big XII and Pac-Ten.

If the 12-game schedule remains intact this would shrink the huge demand for "payday games" that schools in the MAC, WAC, MWC, CUSA and Sunbelt (and even some D1-FCS schools) have been exploiting since the NCCA increased the schedule to 12 games.

This plan would have the added benefit of starting to standardize the SOS for BCS teams, and would give us real insight into which conferences are stronger in any given season.

The argument against this type of set-up has traditionally come from schools like Michigan who can sell-out a cheap game against Appalachian State. But the fact that San Diego state is demanding 1-million means our problem is now theirs.

 

[howeda7]

My idea to solve this problem: Rather than more conference games, I would like to see all of the major conferences agree to a 2-game pre-conference series. Each team plays one game away and one at home as part of the series. If the Pac-Ten and Big Ten expand to 12 teams this would create a 60-game series among the ACC, SEC, Big Ten, Big XII and Pac-Ten.

If the 12-game schedule remains intact this would shrink the huge demand for "payday games" that schools in the MAC, WAC, MWC, CUSA and Sunbelt (and even some D1-FCS schools) have been exploiting since the NCCA increased the schedule to 12 games.

This plan would have the added benefit of starting to standardize the SOS for BCS teams, and would give us real insight into which conferences are stronger in any given season.

Nice idea, but the people in charge can't even figure out how to run an 8-team play-off without causing 'huge' academic difficulties for the players involved . I hardly think they can figure out how to implment such a complicated series as what you suggest here. It's not possible.

 

[RodentRampage]

Less than zero....right.

It's not really a third place game, or a fifth, or whatever. Its just another conference game against a team that we might not otherwise see (in a division alignment system) for possibly another few years.

The home sites would be decided in advance and would be part of standard season ticket packages. Why wouldn't anyone go? It counts as much as any other conference game. Or does your college football stamina completely max out after 12 games? Mine does not. The only thing that would account for lower attendance would be the lack of visiting fans making the trip (due to short notice).

Ok, I exaggerated slightly, the odds of the NCAA allowing this change aren't less than zero, merely zero.

It wouldn't be a conference game: the championship game isn't considered a regular conference game. It would be for 3rd, 5th, 7th, 9th and 11th place. With a 12 team conference, there's a 50% chance that such a game would be a rematch, which would be really anticlimactic.

 

[Goldmember]

Nice idea, but the people in charge can't even figure out how to run an 8-team play-off without causing 'huge' academic difficulties for the players involved .

At present the powers that be have absolutely no incentive for creating an 8-team playoff.

This plan, however, would benefit the major conferences.

I figure it would eliminate about 23-million in "pay-day" dollars that the major conference schools dish-out to teams that their fans have zero interest in.

 

[Rosemountian]

Why it won't happen:

9 Conference Teams Times x 11 Conference Teams = 99 Conference Game Participants

99 is not divisible by 2. So either someone would have to play 10 or someone would still have to play 8. It is not mathematically possible for the league as a whole to go to 9 conference games each.

 

[Iceland12]

Why it won't happen:

9 Conference Teams Times x 11 Conference Teams = 99 Conference Game Participants

99 is not divisible by 2. So either someone would have to play 10 or someone would still have to play 8. It is not mathematically possible for the league as a whole to go to 9 conference games each.

Uh, two 7 team divisions. 6 games within your division, 3 games with teams from the other divisions equals 9 games.

Two 6 team divisions. 5 games within your division, 4 games against the other division equals 9 games.

Yep, there was an unspoken supposition throughout the thread.

 

[GopherGod]

At present the powers that be have absolutely no incentive for creating an 8-team playoff.

This plan, however, would benefit the major conferences.

I figure it would eliminate about 23-million in "pay-day" dollars that the major conference schools dish-out to teams that their fans have zero interest in.

Michigan is not worried about paying the million dollars to schools like San Diego State because by having this additional home game, it is a pay day for Michigan as well. The big schools add these small schools and almost always play them at home because they make good money on these games. By playing another conference game or playing another BCS conference school and rotating the home team from year to year it would potentially cut into many of these schools profits. That is why you don't often see a 1 for 1 deal with schools like Michigan agreeing to for instance go out and play at San Diego State the following year. It is also unlikely that you would see a SEC school for example agree to play at Michigan without Michigan returning the favor. Financially these small school pay day games work out for both the small school and the large BCS school hosting them as a home game without having to return the favor and play at their home field the following season.

 

[howeda7]

At present the powers that be have absolutely no incentive for creating an 8-team playoff.

This plan, however, would benefit the major conferences.

I figure it would eliminate about 23-million in "pay-day" dollars that the major conference schools dish-out to teams that their fans have zero interest in.

It would be great for schools like the Gophers. It would not be great for the OSU's, Texas's and Florida's of the world. They make far more having that cupcake home game 'every' year then having a big-time BCS team every-other year. Besides, until there is a play-off why take the risk of losing a game that might knock you from title-contention? Most schools already have at least one major non-conference opponent each year and they're not dying to add #2.

 

[Goldmember]

Michigan is not worried about paying the million dollars to schools like San Diego State because by having this additional home game, it is a pay day for Michigan as well.

Granted, if any school in the country is not going to be concerned about the growing payout guarantees it's Michigan. But Michigan is a total anomaly. Their stadium is about 25% bigger than most of the biggest in the game. Besides Notre Dame, I don't think anyone has tried an 8 home/ 4 away schedule. Plus, Michigan already goes to South Bend every year- so they have embraced such a plan 50%.

But there is plenty of evidence that even Michigan is unhappy with the growing garuntees. Their AD was backing the plan that would have added a conference game a couple years ago. And I may be wrong, but didn't they also propose a non-conference home-and-home with Minnesota in 2009/2010? It would stand to reason that the teams that if the teams that draw 100k+ would rather play another conference game than another buy-in game they would just as easily agree to such a series.

As far as teams who attract enormous crowds go, they do plenty of complaining about the pay-days. Look at how Nebraska fells about things.