Timeframe for all of this expansion mess?

[colinreturn]

After reading all about this super conference expansion talk, i still cant figure out WHEN all this would happen if it were to happen. Don't teams plan out schedules years in advance with lucrative contracts?

Thanks.

[Breadburner]

Its at least 2 years away maybe more.....

[yankee]

the fact that it's still being talked about, and absolutely nothing has happened, aggravates me to no end...not saying this thread is pissing me off...but that the talking heads continue to bring it up, while athletic directors and school administrators have vehemently denied anything to do with these rumors. **** off-season.

[silverwheels]

The timetable that the Big Ten gave back in December was 12-18 months, so after this football season. Then we have to see what the other conferences will do, so it will be at least another year, probably two.

[yermom]

Jay Paterno had a good point on the scheduling for 16 team conferences. it would be interesting in the way it would decrease the number of undefeated teams though

[silverwheels]

Jay Paterno had a good point on the scheduling for 16 team conferences. it would be interesting in the way it would decrease the number of undefeated teams though

That almost necessitates a playoff.

[goingoneight]

That almost necessitates a playoff.

It won't be long before the "traditionalists" kick off and playoffs happen anyway. Aren't these guys a bunch of 80-90-year old guys all doped up on their meds whilst claiming the BCS is the "best way to decide a champion?"

Every other sport known to man disagrees with them.

[yermom]

i'm not 80-90 :D

[silverwheels]

Well, whatever makes the most money will be the postseason system. As soon as they figure out how to make more money with a playoff, that's what we'll have. The increasing controversy that comes along with increasing parity (and fewer cut-and-dried choices for the BCS title game), will help with that decision process.

[Curly Bill]

I'm not 80-90 either, and playoffs would be no better than the BCS - only different.

The argument that every other sport does it so big-time college football should too, has always been a loser in my book.

[yermom]

i don't know about that though. the more controversy, the more ratings they get

[silverwheels]

I'm not 80-90 either, and playoffs would be no better than the BCS - only different.

The argument that every other sport does it so big-time college football should too, has always been a loser in my book.

The subjectivity of the rankings is what I hate about the current system more than anything. I'd like to see the top division split in two with the big money programs going to one side and the smaller programs going to another. Make the conferences as equal as you can in number and strength, and then you can have an objective playoff system. Would never happen, though.


i don't know about that though. the more controversy, the more ratings they get

People are going to watch, anyway, but there are tons of fans nearly every year who are dissatisfied with the selection of the two teams to play for it all, not to mention the other BCS games. How many years in the BCS have we had a title game where only 2 teams had the right to play in that game? There's no perfect way to do it, but I err on the side of inclusion, not exclusion.

[diegosooner]

I can't get excited about this. If it happens, it happens and nothing we can do.

I figure we'll always play texas and OSU no matter the alignment.

[bluedogok]

Well, whatever makes the most money will be the postseason system. As soon as they figure out how to make more money with a playoff, that's what we'll have. The increasing controversy that comes along with increasing parity (and fewer cut-and-dried choices for the BCS title game), will help with that decision process.
The problem is not necessarily among the top tier program/conference presidents, it is among the ones who have no shot at playoffs, let alone a title that are most for the current system and against playoffs. With the current situation they have a shot at a bowl game and their presidents have the same vote as a BCS conference school president. Much like with state issues, most of the time rural legislators have power over the cities due to their sheer numbers and can block things they don't like from happening.

[silverwheels]

The problem is not necessarily among the top tier program/conference presidents, it is among the ones who have no shot at playoffs, let alone a title that are most for the current system and against playoffs. With the current situation they have a shot at a bowl game and their presidents have the same vote as a BCS conference school president. Much like with state issues, most of the time rural legislators have power over the cities due to their sheer numbers and can block things they don't like from happening.

You could still have bowls with a small playoff (8 teams), at least with the current number of teams in the division. Would hardly be different than it is now. It would just be fewer of them.

[gaylordfan1]

The time table for this happening depends on how many teams split. If its just a couple of teams then maybe next year. If there is a massive bailout between conferences then it will take somewhere around 2-4 years. It all gives me a headache.

[agoo758]

It won't be long before the "traditionalists" kick off and playoffs happen anyway. Aren't these guys a bunch of 80-90-year old guys all doped up on their meds whilst claiming the BCS is the "best way to decide a champion?"

Every other sport known to man disagrees with them.


This talk of a playoff system really annoys me.

First of all, you do your argument no credit by making baseless personal attacks on people like me who disagree with you by calling us "80-90 year old guys all doped up on meds"

Second, what is so divine about a playoff system anyway? How many people do you know care about regular season college basketball or baseball knowing how little effect the big match ups have on the season knowing that theyll meet again in the tournament anyway? Do you like the way the basketball tournament works? Do you like the fact that the tournament consists of a tedious 64 teams playing 63 games while still somehow managing to leave worthy teams out? Sometimes even teams that finish the regular season in the top 25?

Third, what problem are you solving if you institute a playoff system? Advocates generally agree that the BCS and the polls are unreliable ways of determining the national champion. ( I agree with the latter, but I digress) Now how would you sir, want the playoffs spots to be determined? The polls, which you consider unreliable? Or the Bcs, which you consider? Sounds to me that all a playoff system would do is add a whole bunch of games, compromise the integrity of big games during the regular season, and not address any of the problems you believe to exist.

No one is arguing that the BCS is perfect, but what system is perfect? The sad truth is that it is not practical to have all 119 teams play each other every year, instead, we have what is the most objective system in all of sports that prevents ESPN from putting USC and Miami in the championship every year, and I am happy about that.

You can disagree, but stop making personal attacks, its makes you look like an ***.

[TMcGee86]

Jay Paterno had a good point on the scheduling for 16 team conferences. it would be interesting in the way it would decrease the number of undefeated teams though

I must have missed it, what did he say?

[yermom]

http://www.statecollege.com/news/columns/no-free-lunch-in-big-ten-expansion-420197/


There is no free lunch and there is a side effect of a big expansion to 14 or 16 teams. It will change this football conference. By splitting into two divisions of seven or more teams it will erode some cohesiveness and rivalries in the league.

In the Big Ten the rivalries are defined and created on the football field. The intensity of the dislike between Michigan and Ohio State was born of the annual gridiron battles in late November. The hat that I got in the mail was a product of the football battles we’ve had with the Badgers over the years.

In a 12-team league you play five division games and three cross-division games. You see teams for two years and then three years later you play them again.

With 14 teams—and assuming that Wisconsin is in the other division the frequency with which we play them would decrease dramatically. In a 14-team league you would play six games within your division and two games against teams from the other division. After playing Wisconsin home and home in say 2014 and 2015, they would rotate off the schedule for either five or seven years. You would not see them until 2020 at the earliest.

In a 16-team league the math is even worse. Teams would play seven division games and only one team from the other division. So after playing a team in 2014 and 2015 you would not see that team until 2030. Not a great way to keep rivalries going.

It will be a tough sell to go beyond eight conference games because the four non-conference games are the only games where each school keeps all the revenue. Conference games fall under a revenue-sharing plan.

It may also be unlikely that the Big 10 will put Penn State, Ohio State and Michigan all in the same division. They represent the three biggest stadiums, three biggest football revenue schools and consistently pull in the highest television ratings.

As a result one or maybe both of those teams may be opposite Penn State in the division structure and the frequency with which the schools play each other would decrease dramatically.


part of that is that they haven't even split up at 12 like we have yet. it's like what happened with us and Nebraska and Kansas only on a larger scale

[goingoneight]

i'm not 80-90 :D




I'm not 80-90 either, and playoffs would be no better than the BCS - only different.

The argument that every other sport does it so big-time college football should too, has always been a loser in my book.

Neither of you make the decisions on CFB, though. What I was referring to was the old-timers who use that argument against playoffs. Not the people who want them. I always cringe when I hear coaches reading the corporate line that they think the BCS is the best deal. They tend to think VERY differently when things don't shake out for them (see: Lloyd Carr 2006Bob Stoops 2007, Mack Brown 2008, Chris Petersen 2006, 2008, 2009, Pete Carroll 2007, 2008 etc, etc, etc.).

We'll sit and toot the horn of the BCS until it bites us in the BC-***.

I'm not in favor of a big 16-teamer. It goes without saying, obviously I don't think it should ever go beyond there either. I've never seen the 16th-ranked team have a legit argument to play with the top five types. IMO, that's where the strength of schedule AND the season record tells the tale. You don't like being ranked #14 instead of in the top 5? Guess what... no one does. Win more.

This "Super Conferences" thing is going to be interesting when the day comes that the Easter Bunny and Santa Clause show their face. Should it ever become a reality, it completely changes most "playoff formulas" currently being talked about all around the country. In 6 major conferences, with two "at large" spots, it sets up an eight-team, seven game system. Four Super Conferences... well, it could totally set the table for a "Final Four" Atmosphere.

But, no... let's not decide things on the field... you get too dirty and icky that way. Let's vote it out... obviously stats never lie and people always get it right when we vote. [/sarcasm]

[Curly Bill]

So...they don't play it out on the field? Then what is that big game at the end of the year? Problem is some of you fools want someone (polls) picking 8 or so teams to play a tournament instead of just two teams. Same deal, just more BS to it.

[TMcGee86]

Actually, the more I hear about it the more people are saying it will basically end playoff talk.

The reason being that those in charge will be making so much money that it wont be on the agenda anymore.

However, I tend to think that the first time 3 superconference teams go undefeated we will have a major crapstorm on our hands, and like you said, if in fact 4 superconferences emerge from this thing, it would be hard to argue against a final four to decide it all.

[TMcGee86]

http://www.statecollege.com/news/columns/no-free-lunch-in-big-ten-expansion-420197/



part of that is that they haven't even split up at 12 like we have yet. it's like what happened with us and Nebraska and Kansas only on a larger scale

I had wondered about this aspect of it, glad to see someone else mention it.

I still think that if 16 becomes a reality they will lose an OOC game. Maybe even two.

I just can't see only playing one cross-conference game a year. At that point you've done the opposite of expand and actually created two smaller conferences that share a championship game.

[badger]

Opinion: Won't happen.

It is too important for larger, traditional powerhouse conferences to keep the matchups they are guaranteed every few years (if not EVERY year) to have ticket sales, national TV time, and prominence.

Will the Big Ten go to 14-16 teams and risk losing the rivalry of Wisconsin-Penn State that has recently blossomed between two fanbases full of arsehole fans (it's OK for me to say that, because I'm a badger)?! Hells, no!

Oh LSU! I know you guys had such demand for the LSU-Florida ticket that people were counterfeiting them on gameday. You guys must have been able to milk your alumni and donors DRY to get their paws on tickets, but hey, because we expanded your conference to 16 teams, you're only going to meet once every 8 years. Wha-wha-WHAT?!?!?!

Opinion: What WILL happen is that teams establish longterm rivalries with non-conference foes, without actually having those foes become conference foes.

For example!

Mizzou vs. Illini. Two underachiving and overly cocky fanbases determine which of their large schools are more overrated!

Miami vs. Domer. The Catholics versus the Cons! The has-beens versus the has-beens!

OU vs Bammer. Pleasepleasepleasepleasepleasepleasepleasepleasepl ease

Texas vs. Ohio State. A few years ago, the winner coasted to the title game... and did we mention that the winner was the AWAY team both times?!

Florida vs any Florida school. Will it be FSU? The U? South Florida? Who cares!

Boise State vs anyone: Awww, you guys wanna join a big conference even though you only succeed in football? Hahahahhahaha! No. Hahahahahahaha

Iowa vs. ISU: It would be like if OU were to go to another conference, leave Poke behind, and risk the embarrassment of an embarrassing loss to your little brother... or in ISU's case, little sister. Cy-Hawk Trophy!!!!!!

[49r]

Everybody is failing to think about the possibility of a megaconference situation could (read: would most likely) mean the football regular season would be extended to 14 or 16 games.

You'd get your 7 division games + 4 cross-division games + 3, 4 or 5 non-con games per year.

Never say never...

[yermom]

I had wondered about this aspect of it, glad to see someone else mention it.

I still think that if 16 becomes a reality they will lose an OOC game. Maybe even two.

I just can't see only playing one cross-conference game a year. At that point you've done the opposite of expand and actually created two smaller conferences that share a championship game.

that's pretty much what i was thinking

[huskerland]

I've read this board and other boards including Husker boards and it is still early to have any (for sure) conversations on expansions. It is an interesting topic for this off season though! Except one sure thing, OU will not be left out! That's silly! A thread on this board suggests that no one wants OU, That's just an amusing statement.. I don't have the knowledge about the topic of expansion to offer anything intellegent but I'd like to further murky the water with this ( I hope it works) link:

http://huskerextra.com/articles/2010/05/25/football/doc4bf5a14b97789272811423.txt

[rawlingsHOH]

I've read this board and other boards including Husker boards and it is still early to have any (for sure) conversations on expansions. It is an interesting topic for this off season though! Except one sure thing, OU will not be left out! That's silly! A thread on this board suggests that no one wants OU, That's just an amusing statement.. I don't have the knowledge about the topic of expansion to offer anything intellegent but I'd like to further murky the water with this ( I hope it works) link:

http://huskerextra.com/articles/2010/05/25/football/doc4bf5a14b97789272811423.txt

Can't see the forest for the trees.