Upvote
0
-
New here? Register here now for access to all the forums, download game torrents, private messages, polls, Sportsbook, etc. Plus, stay connected and follow BP on Instagram @buckeyeplanet and Facebook.
Latest activity
Upvote
0
Upvote
0
Upvote
0
Memorial Day, 2025
- By scooter1369
- Open Discussion (Work-safe)
- 7 Replies
Got up this morning, made myself a pot of coffee and watched Taking Chance.
Upvote
0
Upvote
0
Upvote
0
LGHL Unpopular Opinion: Fun factor of conference expansion wears off quickly
- News
- 0 Replies
Unpopular Opinion: Fun factor of conference expansion wears off quickly
Michael Citro via our friends at Land-Grant Holy Land
Visit their fantastic blog and read the full article (and so much more) here
UCLA vs. Rutgers was an actual Big Ten football game in 2024. Did any fan want or need this? | Photo by Ed Mulholland/Getty Images
Super conferences are actually bad for college football.
From now until preseason camp starts in August, Land-Grant Holy Land will be writing articles around a different theme every week. This week is all about unpopular opinions.
You can catch up on all of the Theme Week content here and all our “Unpopular Opinion” articles here.
As a fan and alum of a blueblood college football program that is part of one of the so-called “super conferences” (and I think we can safely stop framing what’s been happening as “realignment” now), it pains me a bit to say it, but super conferences are a bad idea and they’re bad for college football.
(Note: For the purposes of this column, I’m writing about college football and am not delving into what conference expansion means for other sports.)
New additions to the conference are fun for a while. I’m old enough to remember how novel it was when Penn State joined the Big Ten. Those first couple of meetings (home and away) with the Nittany Lions were interesting. Adding the Penn State traditions and history to the B1G was strange, but cool.
After the initial newness wore off of the Nitts becoming a Big Ten program, Penn State vs. Ohio State (and PSU vs. Michigan) has been a lot of fun over the years and has provided a lot of incredible football moments (and yes, I fought it for a while, but I am one of those weirdos who believes that they are an Ohio State rival).
/cdn.vox-cdn.com/uploads/chorus_asset/file/26007856/2182511614.jpg "Ohio State v Penn State")
Photo by Scott Taetsch/Getty Images
Ohio State vs. Penn State is an argument for conference expansion, but it is an exception.
Nebraska joining the league was interesting but seemed less dramatic by comparison. I thought perhaps the inclusion of the Huskers in the B1G would revitalize that program. That didn’t happen, but it might be in the early stages of happening now.
Again, the Buckeyes’ first few visits to Lincoln and the Cornhuskers’ first couple of trips to Columbus were interesting. But now that series is largely the same as playing Iowa, which isn’t to say that it is an unattractive matchup, but it doesn’t spark any additional interest the way Penn State does, and that could change if Nebraska’s program can get back to the national significance it once had.
The double addition of Rutgers and Maryland still seems like a drug-induced fever dream. It was the college football equivalent to adding a new kid with a recurring catch phrase to a stagnating sitcom. It improved nothing, may have degraded the product somewhat, and just seems to annoy everyone.
The quadruple addition to the Big Ten of former Pac-12 giants USC, UCLA, Oregon, and Washington was an attention grabber. Oregon (in quality) and USC (in historical terms) were eye-opening, headline-generating bombshells. UCLA and Washington feel like they came along for the ride, although both football programs have rich histories and successful pasts.
It’s early, but the arrival of these four new members in the Big Ten feels weird. The conference has grown so large, that it’s tough to imagine they can develop meaningful rivalries with the teams that were already in the conference, with the possible exception of Oregon with Ohio State. That’s largely based on a history of meaningful postseason games the Buckeyes and Ducks have played in the last decade or two — particularly during and after the 2024 season.
The conference lost a bit of its sense of regional pride and uniqueness when Rutgers and Maryland joined, and the additions of the former Pac-12 schools has diluted that even more. We’re still breaking in these additions, so who knows where this is going, but for now it feels pretty meh, and it’s going to take time before all of the traditional B1G schools have even played the newcomers both home and away.
The Pac-12 arrivals are still in their “new” phase, and it might last a while because the length of the season dictates that every team plays an incomplete conference schedule.
Getting back to the fun, it was a blast seeing how the new kids on the block would fare in their first season of Big Ten football, and they had extremely mixed results. Each new environment is fun at first when conference standings are on the line, and it’s cool to learn about traditions and history one has either no prior knowledge or an incomplete understanding of.
Few would say that the OSU-PSU rivalry isn’t still fun. That has grown organically and has been helped by:
As I mentioned above, however, seeing Nebraska on the schedule doesn’t move the needle for me anymore. The Huskers are more compelling than some longtime B1G programs, but there’s still probably more juice for me in defeating a depleted Michigan State team than Nebraska. That’s not a knock on them. Old feelings linger and there is far more recent animosity with the Spartans than with the Cornhuskers.
I’ll be honest and say the weirdness of adding Rutgers and Maryland did not produce the same level of fun — even in the first couple of years — that Penn State and Nebraska did. And now, seeing those two schools on the schedule is no different than playing Purdue or Northwestern, except those feel more like Big Ten games to me than facing the Scarlet Knights or Terrapins.
/cdn.vox-cdn.com/uploads/chorus_asset/file/26007861/1814174106.jpg "Maryland v Rutgers")
Photo by Rich Schultz/Getty Images
Tradition? History? Rivalry? Meh.
Unbalanced schedules, not seeing certain teams for multiple years, and having to plan around maximum time zone differences is problematic. It can dilute, rather than promote, rivalries and make existing ones disadvantageous if protected. After all, when some teams may have an easier path to a conference title, it’s a detriment to have two massive rivalry games as “protected” rivalries.
That promotes an unlevel playing field and one that can shift quickly if programs fall off or others rise, which was shown in the disparity between the two divisions when the Big Ten had them. (RIP, Leaders and Legends.)
As a fan of college football beyond my favorite team, it’s sad to see what happened to the Pac-12, and it feels like the Big XII has become an unrecognizable blob of randomness. Time moves on, but neutering tradition feels like killing the golden goose.
Conferences other than the Big Ten and SEC may provide challengers and great teams, but this sport feels like it belongs to those two entities now, and that’s largely because of all the teams/schools they’ve assimilated along the way.
And assimilated is how it feels. It’s like two giant Borg ships snapping up all the resources, or if you’re not a Star Trek nerd like me, it’s college football colonialism. It feels a bit icky to me and, if I’m being honest, less special.
What do you think of the concept of super conferences? Is it good for the sport? Bad? Does it not matter at all to you? Am I just an old, spewing his get-off-my-lawn philosophies (this is a trick question, because the obvious answer is yes, but that doesn’t invalidate the viewpoint).
Let us know what you think in the comments section below.
Continue reading...
Michael Citro via our friends at Land-Grant Holy Land
Visit their fantastic blog and read the full article (and so much more) here
UCLA vs. Rutgers was an actual Big Ten football game in 2024. Did any fan want or need this? | Photo by Ed Mulholland/Getty Images
Super conferences are actually bad for college football.
From now until preseason camp starts in August, Land-Grant Holy Land will be writing articles around a different theme every week. This week is all about unpopular opinions.
You can catch up on all of the Theme Week content here and all our “Unpopular Opinion” articles here.
As a fan and alum of a blueblood college football program that is part of one of the so-called “super conferences” (and I think we can safely stop framing what’s been happening as “realignment” now), it pains me a bit to say it, but super conferences are a bad idea and they’re bad for college football.
(Note: For the purposes of this column, I’m writing about college football and am not delving into what conference expansion means for other sports.)
On the one hand, I like fun
New additions to the conference are fun for a while. I’m old enough to remember how novel it was when Penn State joined the Big Ten. Those first couple of meetings (home and away) with the Nittany Lions were interesting. Adding the Penn State traditions and history to the B1G was strange, but cool.
After the initial newness wore off of the Nitts becoming a Big Ten program, Penn State vs. Ohio State (and PSU vs. Michigan) has been a lot of fun over the years and has provided a lot of incredible football moments (and yes, I fought it for a while, but I am one of those weirdos who believes that they are an Ohio State rival).
Ohio State vs. Penn State is an argument for conference expansion, but it is an exception.
Nebraska joining the league was interesting but seemed less dramatic by comparison. I thought perhaps the inclusion of the Huskers in the B1G would revitalize that program. That didn’t happen, but it might be in the early stages of happening now.
Again, the Buckeyes’ first few visits to Lincoln and the Cornhuskers’ first couple of trips to Columbus were interesting. But now that series is largely the same as playing Iowa, which isn’t to say that it is an unattractive matchup, but it doesn’t spark any additional interest the way Penn State does, and that could change if Nebraska’s program can get back to the national significance it once had.
The double addition of Rutgers and Maryland still seems like a drug-induced fever dream. It was the college football equivalent to adding a new kid with a recurring catch phrase to a stagnating sitcom. It improved nothing, may have degraded the product somewhat, and just seems to annoy everyone.
The quadruple addition to the Big Ten of former Pac-12 giants USC, UCLA, Oregon, and Washington was an attention grabber. Oregon (in quality) and USC (in historical terms) were eye-opening, headline-generating bombshells. UCLA and Washington feel like they came along for the ride, although both football programs have rich histories and successful pasts.
It’s early, but the arrival of these four new members in the Big Ten feels weird. The conference has grown so large, that it’s tough to imagine they can develop meaningful rivalries with the teams that were already in the conference, with the possible exception of Oregon with Ohio State. That’s largely based on a history of meaningful postseason games the Buckeyes and Ducks have played in the last decade or two — particularly during and after the 2024 season.
The conference lost a bit of its sense of regional pride and uniqueness when Rutgers and Maryland joined, and the additions of the former Pac-12 schools has diluted that even more. We’re still breaking in these additions, so who knows where this is going, but for now it feels pretty meh, and it’s going to take time before all of the traditional B1G schools have even played the newcomers both home and away.
The Pac-12 arrivals are still in their “new” phase, and it might last a while because the length of the season dictates that every team plays an incomplete conference schedule.
Getting back to the fun, it was a blast seeing how the new kids on the block would fare in their first season of Big Ten football, and they had extremely mixed results. Each new environment is fun at first when conference standings are on the line, and it’s cool to learn about traditions and history one has either no prior knowledge or an incomplete understanding of.
On the other hand, the fun can wear off
Few would say that the OSU-PSU rivalry isn’t still fun. That has grown organically and has been helped by:
- Being geographical neighbors.
- Both programs remaining relevant in the national picture.
- The teams playing such dramatic and riveting games against each other.
As I mentioned above, however, seeing Nebraska on the schedule doesn’t move the needle for me anymore. The Huskers are more compelling than some longtime B1G programs, but there’s still probably more juice for me in defeating a depleted Michigan State team than Nebraska. That’s not a knock on them. Old feelings linger and there is far more recent animosity with the Spartans than with the Cornhuskers.
I’ll be honest and say the weirdness of adding Rutgers and Maryland did not produce the same level of fun — even in the first couple of years — that Penn State and Nebraska did. And now, seeing those two schools on the schedule is no different than playing Purdue or Northwestern, except those feel more like Big Ten games to me than facing the Scarlet Knights or Terrapins.
Tradition? History? Rivalry? Meh.
Going beyond fun…
Unbalanced schedules, not seeing certain teams for multiple years, and having to plan around maximum time zone differences is problematic. It can dilute, rather than promote, rivalries and make existing ones disadvantageous if protected. After all, when some teams may have an easier path to a conference title, it’s a detriment to have two massive rivalry games as “protected” rivalries.
That promotes an unlevel playing field and one that can shift quickly if programs fall off or others rise, which was shown in the disparity between the two divisions when the Big Ten had them. (RIP, Leaders and Legends.)
As a fan of college football beyond my favorite team, it’s sad to see what happened to the Pac-12, and it feels like the Big XII has become an unrecognizable blob of randomness. Time moves on, but neutering tradition feels like killing the golden goose.
Conferences other than the Big Ten and SEC may provide challengers and great teams, but this sport feels like it belongs to those two entities now, and that’s largely because of all the teams/schools they’ve assimilated along the way.
And assimilated is how it feels. It’s like two giant Borg ships snapping up all the resources, or if you’re not a Star Trek nerd like me, it’s college football colonialism. It feels a bit icky to me and, if I’m being honest, less special.
What do you think of the concept of super conferences? Is it good for the sport? Bad? Does it not matter at all to you? Am I just an old, spewing his get-off-my-lawn philosophies (this is a trick question, because the obvious answer is yes, but that doesn’t invalidate the viewpoint).
Let us know what you think in the comments section below.
Continue reading...
Upvote
0
Upvote
0
Upvote
0
Upvote
0