Division 1 College Conference Realignment

[illwauk]

I've had that exact same beef ever since they came up with that idiotic rule. The only rationale (albeit a weak one) I can think of is that the minimum number of teams allowed for a conference is 6, so conferences with 12 teams can technically be considered "double conferences" and therefore justify a bowl-like matchup (told you it was weak).

But since all signs are pointing towards the Big Ten looking east, I'm hoping for Pitt. It wouldn't stretch the conference further than it already is (Central PA to Iowa is way too much ground for a college conference IMO) and it would restart the Penn State-Pitt rivalry as well as make them natural travel partners. Only thing I don't like about it is what it would do with the Big East, but I would think it would just be more motivation for the notoriously petty Big Ten to raid the conference that dared to eat away at its relative exclusivity over the Milwaukee (Marquette) and Chicago (DePaul) markets.

[Jigga]

Can anyone honestly say that there is a better canidate than Notre Dame. I know they want to keep their independent status but if I was the Big Ten I would do everything I could to bring them on board.

Do they want to keep their Independent status? Or do they want to keep every cent of that lucrative NBC contract? I think it's the latter.

Once again, each Big 10 team makes more from the BTN and ABC deals than ND makes from NBC.

1) Will each Big Tenleven still make more from the BTN and ABC if it expanded to 12 teams?

2) Can you give us some figures to back that up? We're a cynical lot 'round here and generally need numbers to verify these types of claims.

[dfwabel]

I just had an extended discussion about this with one of my good friends, and the biggest college football fan I know (we're both students at Wisconsin). Neither of us can see the Big T1E1N expanding to the Big T1E2N anytime soon, but we still ran a what would we do scenario.

That leaves the Big 12 a team short. TCU is not a possibility, for reasons to be explained later, so we're thinking of Houston, they're a bit small, but are competitive in both basketball and football.

North

Colorado

Iowa State

Kansas

Kansas State

Nebraska

Oklahoma State

South

Texas

Texas A&M

Texas Tech

Houston

Oklahoma

Baylor

By not adding TCU to the Big 12 they remain in the Mountain West, which could be made a legitimate conference with the addition of Boise State. We decided that Wyoming or SDSU would be most dropable, with Wyoming at the top. So add Boise State and make Mountain West a BCS conference and we have

Boise State

TCU

UNLV

SDSU

Air Force

BYU

Colorado State

Utah

New Mexico

A few other ideas we had were for the Big Ten to drop a team and have a Pac-10 like schedule, which is near perfection in our opinion. We don't see this happening any time soon. Another option was to keep things the way they are and have a Big Ten-Big East championship, each team already guaranteed its bowl game. This would just be a moneymaker, but would it make money? Probably not.

Houston is not small, with 30,000 students, it is just that they have a stadium which seats 12,000 less than TCU but like TCU in the Metroplex, the city of Houston has other options for the entertainment dollar. They only average 25,000 fans, but both schools would sell out their home games if given entry to the Big XII.

As for making the Mountain West a BCS conference by adding Boise is still a mystery to me. The conference made the decision to start their own network (which is not even seen in the states they occupy), Versus, and CBS College Sports because they and their fans did not want play at non-traditional times/days. That is the opposite of what Boise does as they rightfully believe that a Friday night game on ESPN means that the nation sees you. Plus, adding Boise as a market does not really assist you, especially if you get rid of San Diego. You add Boise and still nobody will watch since nobody CAN watch.

[rams80]

What's more important about that rivalry? The fact that it is played, or when it is played?

If you want to keep it as the last game in the season, that means that the rivalry that defines the Conference to many will never again be the Big Ten championship game. If we play it earlier, and split the teams up, that makes a championship matchup possible.

Well they're not going to not play the game so what's more important is when it's played and it's been played as the last game of the season since 1938. They're not going to change the schedule because there's too much tradition there. Changing the date of the game would do more damage to the rivalry IMO than reducing the importance of the game from Conference champion to division champion.

Playing the game in late november is as big a part of the tradition as the winged helmets and buckeye leaf stickers.

Somehow the SEC has been able to keep "3rd Saturday in October" working even when it is not played on the 3rd Saturday in October, and the Auburn-Georgia rivalry is still as heated as it was before divisions.

I don't buy that date is important in this situation. The game is still being played annually. Even more importantly, it keeps open the possibility of a Michigan-Ohio State Conference Championship ratings bonanza.

Then you don't know the Ohio State-Michigan game. The game will always be played annually, we know that and we aren't worried that it won't be played if they are in separate divisions. Moving the game to September or October will change the dynamics of the game. Using Auburn-Georgia isn't a good comparison because the OSU-Michigan rivalry is more like Auburn-Alabama. Those two play on the last day of the season, are in the same division and their rivalry is just as heated as it was before divisions. Ask Auburn or Alabama fans how they would feel if the Iron Bowl were moved to the middle of the season.

The Big Ten may want to see an Ohio State-Michigan championship game rematch because of the $$$, but the fans won't if it means they have to play the first game in September.

Allow me to explain it this way, OSU-Michigan's placement as the last game on the schedule holds significance in that fans look forward to it all season. If you move it to the middle of the big ten schedule then it might as well be just another big ten conference game. It's placement on the last day of the season still makes the game important even if either team is having a bad year or 6.

So there are two options, put them into different divisions which would mean that you would have to move one of the most famous college football rivalries off of the last game so that in the instance where they meet in the champ game then they won't play in back to back weeks. Or, put them into the same division, continue to play on the last day of the regular season and battle it out for the division championship.

Does it really matter when in the season a beat down of your arch rival happens, just so long as it happens?

[HedleyLamarr]

So there are two options, put them into different divisions which would mean that you would have to move one of the most famous college football rivalries off of the last game so that in the instance where they meet in the champ game then they won't play in back to back weeks. Or, put them into the same division, continue to play on the last day of the regular season and battle it out for the division championship.

If Michigan and Ohio State were to play in opposite divisions, exactly why can't they keep their game at the end of the season?

[The_Admiral]

I don't understand why it can't be the last game of the regular season with a championship game following it. Good God, the world can't revolve around Michigan-Ohio State.

[Sport]

What's more important about that rivalry? The fact that it is played, or when it is played?

If you want to keep it as the last game in the season, that means that the rivalry that defines the Conference to many will never again be the Big Ten championship game. If we play it earlier, and split the teams up, that makes a championship matchup possible.

Well they're not going to not play the game so what's more important is when it's played and it's been played as the last game of the season since 1938. They're not going to change the schedule because there's too much tradition there. Changing the date of the game would do more damage to the rivalry IMO than reducing the importance of the game from Conference champion to division champion.

Playing the game in late november is as big a part of the tradition as the winged helmets and buckeye leaf stickers.

Somehow the SEC has been able to keep "3rd Saturday in October" working even when it is not played on the 3rd Saturday in October, and the Auburn-Georgia rivalry is still as heated as it was before divisions.

I don't buy that date is important in this situation. The game is still being played annually. Even more importantly, it keeps open the possibility of a Michigan-Ohio State Conference Championship ratings bonanza.

Then you don't know the Ohio State-Michigan game. The game will always be played annually, we know that and we aren't worried that it won't be played if they are in separate divisions. Moving the game to September or October will change the dynamics of the game. Using Auburn-Georgia isn't a good comparison because the OSU-Michigan rivalry is more like Auburn-Alabama. Those two play on the last day of the season, are in the same division and their rivalry is just as heated as it was before divisions. Ask Auburn or Alabama fans how they would feel if the Iron Bowl were moved to the middle of the season.

The Big Ten may want to see an Ohio State-Michigan championship game rematch because of the $$$, but the fans won't if it means they have to play the first game in September.

Allow me to explain it this way, OSU-Michigan's placement as the last game on the schedule holds significance in that fans look forward to it all season. If you move it to the middle of the big ten schedule then it might as well be just another big ten conference game. It's placement on the last day of the season still makes the game important even if either team is having a bad year or 6.

So there are two options, put them into different divisions which would mean that you would have to move one of the most famous college football rivalries off of the last game so that in the instance where they meet in the champ game then they won't play in back to back weeks. Or, put them into the same division, continue to play on the last day of the regular season and battle it out for the division championship.

Does it really matter when in the season a beat down of your arch rival happens, just so long as it happens?

Yes, I've explained it. Being at the end of the season adds more to the rivalry. period. Put it in the beginning or the middle and it might as well be Ohio State-Minnesota or Michigan-Purdue.

So there are two options, put them into different divisions which would mean that you would have to move one of the most famous college football rivalries off of the last game so that in the instance where they meet in the champ game then they won't play in back to back weeks. Or, put them into the same division, continue to play on the last day of the regular season and battle it out for the division championship.

If Michigan and Ohio State were to play in opposite divisions, exactly why can't they keep their game at the end of the season?

I don't understand why it can't be the last game of the regular season with a championship game following it. Good God, the world can't revolve around Michigan-Ohio State.

For one, if both teams have their respective divisions locked up prior to the final game then it basically becomes a meaningless exercise in redundancy (assuming there are no BCS title game implications). You might as well just forget the regular season game altogether and go straight to the Big Ten Championship game. Of course, this is all contigent on Michigan ever getting their act together and becoming competitive again, but I just don't think it's fair to ask a team to beat their biggest rival in back-to-back weeks to win a conference. I'm also against playing the game in the middle of the season. Hence, I'm in favor of putting the Buckeyes and Wolverines into the same division where they can battle for the division on the last day.

[rams80]

If your fans need the framing device of "last week of the regular season-probably" to get it up for beating down those inbred halfwits at Archrival University, they kind of suck.

If your teams need the framing device of "last week of the regular season-probably" to get it up for beating down those inbred halfwits at Archrival University, your coaches kind of suck and need to be fired.

[infrared41]

Does it really matter when in the season a beat down of your arch rival happens, just so long as it happens?

In this case, yes. It matters a great deal. There is no logical explanation for it but it's the way we want it.

If Michigan and Ohio State were to play in opposite divisions, exactly why can't they keep their game at the end of the season?

Good point. I'm fine with it if they end up meeting in The Big Ten title game. I have no problem at all with beating their asses two weeks in a row. We need to stop acting as if it's a guarantee that either team will always play in the championship game.

I'll also add this; The Big XII ruined the Oklahoma - Nebraska rivalry when they messed around with it. Let's learn from history and not botch up Ohio State - Michigan.

[Sport]

If your fans need the framing device of "last week of the regular season-probably" to get it up for beating down those inbred halfwits at Archrival University, they kind of suck.

If your teams need the framing device of "last week of the regular season-probably" to get it up for beating down those inbred halfwits at Archrival University, your coaches kind of suck and need to be fired.

It's not that, it's that they've played it on the last day of the season for 70 years. People and players would still be able to get up for the game, but playing it in the middle of the season would cause it to lose some of its aura. Plus, you're tearing down 70 years of tradition for the low possibility of a championship game rematch. At this point, it would be a once in every ten years occurrence. I don't think that's worth breaking tradition.

[The_Admiral]

Still not understanding how a championship game precludes a Michigan-Ohio State game in the last week.

[rams80]

I'll also add this; The Big XII ruined the Oklahoma - Nebraska rivalry when they messed around with it. Let's learn from history and not botch up Ohio State - Michigan.

They killed it because they adopted a scheduling system that lacked protected cross division rivalries. My suggested alignment that I think touched this off was going to allow for one cross division protected rivalry.

If having a championship game rematch immediately thereafter works for everyone, sure keep it at the last week of the season. The bigger issue here is we need to break up the Michigan, Ohio State, Penn State group of death somehow, and I'd like to see it done in a geographically rational way that is not like the ACC's cluster alignment that nobody really remembers and you could likely change annually without anyone noticing the difference.

[GeorgesL]

I believe Notre Dame would be a perfect fit for the Big Ten as well, however, one of the reasons they will refuse the invitation is that the school has a TV deal with NBC. NBC would frown upon ND joining the Big Ten, or any conference with that matter.

Missouri could go, because of their rivalry with Illinois. However, I like to see Pittsburgh join the Conference, because it would be a natural rival to Penn State. Someone mentioned the University of Chicago. A former Big Ten school from way back when, but it's too small of a school.

I would love to see the Laval Rouge et Or in an NCAA conference, Ivy League perhaps, along with McGill University, but that's another matter.

Bottom line is if Notre Dame was the first to be offered entry into the Big 10, it's a 95% chance they will decline. So my pick is Pittsburgh.

[Sport]

I'll also add this; The Big XII ruined the Oklahoma - Nebraska rivalry when they messed around with it. Let's learn from history and not botch up Ohio State - Michigan.

They killed it because they adopted a scheduling system that lacked protected cross division rivalries. My suggested alignment that I think touched this off was going to allow for one cross division protected rivalry.

If having a championship game rematch immediately thereafter works for everyone, sure keep it at the last week of the season. The bigger issue here is we need to break up the Michigan, Ohio State, Penn State group of death somehow, and I'd like to see it done in a geographically rational way that is not like the ACC's cluster alignment that nobody really remembers and you could likely change annually without anyone noticing the difference.

Yes, you'd have to go with a primary cross-over opponent. I think it's silly and I'm a little surprised the Big 12 doesn't have that

I guess I could live with Michigan being in opposite divisions because a championship game rematch wouldn't be that often an occurrence, but they don't have to be opposite OSU and Penn State. This "group of death" doesn't exist right now, at least not with Michigan being included. They were 1-7 in the conference last year. Historically they've been good and so has Penn State, but Penn State, Michigan, and Ohio State can and do have their down years. Just tell me, how would divide the conference so that OSU and Michigan aren't together, but that it still makes sense geographically. North/South?

Just for kicks, here's how the divisions standings would've looked this season if you used the natural east-west lineups (I realize these teams did not play a divisional schedule)

East

Ohio State 7-1

Penn State 6-2

MSU 4-4

Purdue 4-4

Indiana 1-7

Michigan 1-7

West

Iowa 6-2

Wisconsin 5-3

Northwestern 5-3

Minnesota 3-5

Illinois 2-6

*new team*

Iowa would've had a rematch with Ohio State for the championship game.

[rams80]

Just tell me, how would divide the conference so that OSU and Michigan aren't together, but that it still makes sense geographically. North/South?

Bingo

If ND:

South: Penn State, Ohio State, Indiana, Purdue, Illinois, Northwestern

North: Michigan, Michigan State, Notre Dame, Wisconsin, Iowa, Minnesota

If Pitt:

South: Penn State, Pittsburgh, Ohio State, Indiana, Purdue, Illinois

North: Michigan, Michigan State, Northwestern, Wisconsin, Iowa, Minnesota

If Missouri:

South: Missouri, Illinois, Indiana, Purdue, Ohio State, Penn State

North: Michigan, Michigan State, Northwestern, Wisconsin, Iowa, Minnesota

[infrared41]

I'll also add this; The Big XII ruined the Oklahoma - Nebraska rivalry when they messed around with it. Let's learn from history and not botch up Ohio State - Michigan.

They killed it because they adopted a scheduling system that lacked protected cross division rivalries. My suggested alignment that I think touched this off was going to allow for one cross division protected rivalry.

If having a championship game rematch immediately thereafter works for everyone, sure keep it at the last week of the season. The bigger issue here is we need to break up the Michigan, Ohio State, Penn State group of death somehow, and I'd like to see it done in a geographically rational way that is not like the ACC's cluster alignment that nobody really remembers and you could likely change annually without anyone noticing the difference.

Not for nothing but... Isn't it entirely possible that other teams could win either division? I'll say it again, we keep acting as if the season is just a formality that will lead to the inevitable Ohio State -Michigan clash for the Big Ten title every season. Last I checked, it's no longer the 60's and 70's when it was the Big 2 and the little 8. (Then again, I take a lot of painkillers so you may want to double check my assessment of what decade it is. )

[The_Admiral]

Then why don't you put them in the same division and have their game be the last one before the championship game?

[rams80]

Not for nothing but... Isn't it entirely possible that other teams could win either division? I'll say it again, we keep acting as if the season is just a formality that will lead to the inevitable Ohio State -Michigan clash for the Big Ten title every season. Last I checked, it's no longer the 60's and 70's when it was the Big 2 and the little 8. (Then again, I take a lot of painkillers so you may want to double check my assessment of what decade it is. )

Well...the Big Twelve did get their Nebraska-Oklahoma Title game once. Granted it was after Tom Osborne retired, so it was nothing more than Oklahoma pimp slapping the utter bejeezus out of the Huskers, which in turn was a prelude to next season's defensive implosion-which resulted in the termination of Bill Callahan and AD Steve Pederson and the appointment of Osborne as God Emperor and Dictator for Life in Lincoln...wait what was I saying?

Oh yeah...you can get the "desired" championship game. The Big Twelve did so once.

[DarkJourney]

I'll also add this; The Big XII ruined the Oklahoma - Nebraska rivalry when they messed around with it. Let's learn from history and not botch up Ohio State - Michigan.

Couldn't agree more

[BBTV]

Then why don't you put them in the same division and have their game be the last one before the championship game?

I agree with this.

The argument is that if OSU has the title-game berth wrapped up prior to the Michigan game, do they rest any starters, therefore diminishing the importance of the game? If their title-game opponent is in the same position, and does rest players, that could put OSU at a disadvantage.

I don't think it's a really good argument, but that's what it would be.