Big Ten and other Conference Expansion

[IronBuckI]

...
on another crazy thought/idea, are division necessary? ...

Under the current rules, a CCG has to be between division winners. So, yes, divisions are necessary. However, I imagine that your rotating schedule idea could work if the divisions weren't static. Not sure if that's a legal manipulation of the rule or not.

 

[BB73]

I really think they will not go the traditional two division route, but instead do a pod system of 4 teams.

So then every game would be a podcast?

 

[jimotis4heisman]

Under the current rules, a CCG has to be between division winners. So, yes, divisions are necessary. However, I imagine that your rotating schedule idea could work if the divisions weren't static. Not sure if that's a legal manipulation of the rule or not.

rules are made to be changed. im willing to bet that like you said either rotating divisions? or tell the ncaa to change the damn rules, it cant be that hard.

(on a side note with the ncaa investigatory skills, i think you could just do it and they may not even catch on/catch the big ten)

 

[jlb1705]

i dont necessarily think that moving teams destroys rivalries, but htat is my view. as long as they still play. if you stay in divison you can create some sort of one cross divisional rivalry, or something. i think you hit on a point, it is important to recognize psu biggest rival is ohio state...

This is what makes adding teams like Texas, ND, and/or Nebraska important.

It looks like no matter what, some high-profile rivalries might be broken, or at least taken out of regular rotation. If Ohio State-Penn State is a casualty, I doubt you'll hear much fuss about it from Ohio at least. Penn State fans will bitch about it endlessly, of course. It's been competitive and entertaining, but it's not really a long-established tradition so it can afford to go if it needs to.

What would be missing though is the "product" that gets sold to TV. I believe that for the most part since it was instituted with PSU's addition to the conference that the OSU-PSU game has ended up being a national TV affair. Because of that, this matchup likely doesn't affect the BTN all that much. In the future though it could affect the product you're trying to sell to ESPN/ABC when the next round on contract negotiations comes. If you take a high-profile matchup and make it occasional rather than annual, you have to be sure you're adding high-profile programming value in other places.

 

[jimotis4heisman]

and add this
DMA Rankings - US TV Households by Market


look at the largest tv markets
ny
la
chi
philly
boston
san fran
dallas
dc
atl
houston
detroit
tampa
sea-tac
phx
clev-akron
miami
denver
sacramento
orlando-daytona
st lou
pitt
portland
baltimore
indy
san diego
char
hartford
raleigh
nash
kc
cbus
milwaukee
cincy
greenville, etc
salt lake
san antonio
west palm
grand rapids
birmingham
norfolk
nola
memphis
ok city
alburque-sf
greensboro
vegas
buff
lville

Media Info Center


its interesting to see how different inclusions of teams would expand those markets.

 

[jwinslow]

i dont necessarily think that moving teams destroys rivalries, but htat is my view. as long as they still play.

If you have 14-16 teams, it becomes difficult to make sure OSU & PSU/ILL play every year across the divisions.

It looks like no matter what, some high-profile rivalries might be broken, or at least taken out of regular rotation.

Not necessarily , at least not for the b10.

This is what makes adding teams like Texas, ND, and/or Nebraska important.

yup. Add quality west teams so PSU can stay in the east where they belong:
1) OSU, UM & MSU annual matchups
2) Playing the 1-2 east coast additions. If you want the NYC market, you better not have PSU out in the division of Mississippi river teams.
3) Just say no to confusing division titles like coastal & atlantic. East/West works nicely.

What would be missing though is the "product" that gets sold to TV. I believe that for the most part since it was instituted with PSU's addition to the conference that the OSU-PSU game has ended up being a national TV affair. Because of that, this matchup likely doesn't affect the BTN all that much. In the future though it could affect the product you're trying to sell to ESPN/ABC when the next round on contract negotiations comes. If you take a high-profile matchup and make it occasional rather than annual, you have to be sure you're adding high-profile programming value in other places.

College Gameday was there 3 or 4 straight years. No other game came close to that.

It was the premiere b10 matchup in the last 5 years (05, 07, 08 & 09. They were at 06 but obviously The Game trumped it)

 

[calibuck]

There are alot of options available out there. What is fascinating to me is the Game Theory of whether the B10 does a 'pre-emptive strike' and offers 4-5 schools the opportunity to join up, decimating the Big East, forcing Notre Dame to beg to come in, else they'd be without a conference during this collusion, or will the SEC seize the initiative and leap forth first?

It seems that all the schools are talking to each other, and it almost seems like there have been some preliminary decisions made (Texas to the Pac10), if I read the tea leaves correctly. Maybe not.

However, some of you younger MBA types are better versed in GT than I am now, so whaddya say? Is the B10 looking to leap first, grab who they want, and then let the rest of the teams scuffle it out, or are they 'throwing expansion' out there, and letting someone else (SEC, ACC?) jump first, so they don't get left behind, then the B10 can take the high road and offer who they want anyway. The interesting chip might be if the Texas, Notre Dames and some of the lesser schools are not 'asked to dance' and form a loose coalition of Independent Schools. Any hypothesis on timing and who pulls the trigger first?

:gobucks3::gobucks4:

 

[BuckeyeNation27]

Fuck Penn State.

Please continue.

 

[jwinslow]

Fuck Penn State.

Please continue.

Spoken like a true rival :cheers:

 

[kinch]

Fuck Penn State.

Please continue.

I would like to add the fact that "Fuck Penn State."

Twice.

In the ass.

kthxbai

 

[Mike80]

I still have absolutely no confidence in Jim Delaney.

 

[cincibuck]

Oh, I know that. But the elitist prick domers would want even MORE revenue all because they are elitist pricks.



There is a reason it is called 'potential' . But at worst they can be a Illinois/Purdue/MSU level team. At least it won't be at the Indiana level. But no one will know til about 5+ years after expansion has happened.



I really think they will not go the traditional two division route, but instead do a pod system of 4 teams.



Back to the 4 team pods. The pod system does not mean there will be a Big 10 mini playoff. The most likely way the pod system will work is by rotating the pods to create the 8 team division to feed into the championship game. The rotating pods allows you play every member on a more regular basis. You can do either 8 or 9 conference games. 3 games from your own pod + 4 games from your paired pod to form the division + 1/2 games from your non-division pods that can either be random or they could be tied together.

Example: (assuming the 5 teams most likely rumored)

Pod 1 - Penn State, Pitt, Syracuse, Rutgers
Pod 2 - Ohio State, Michigan, Michigan State, Indiana
Pod 3 - Iowa, Wisconsin, Minnesota, Purdue
Pod 4 - Nebraska, Missouri, Illinois, Northwestern

How the schedule would work out is as follows:

Pod 1&2 grouped together. So Ohio State plays everyone in Pod 1 & 2 for a total of 7 games. In a 8 conference game schedule let us assume that 8th game is a 'protected' rival. So that 8th game every year could be Illinois. In a 9 conference game schedule there might be a 'protected' team in for each pod. So then the 9th game could be Wisconsin.

In year two Pod 2 & 3 are together and Ohio St plays everyone in their pod. Then their protected Illinois game and since they play pod 3 already, they then play they protected game from Pod 1, Penn State.

Then in Year three Pod 2 & 4 form a division.

Of course they might rotate every two years so one year is home and the other year is away. And there might be some other way to determine that 8th/9th conference game. But that is just at first thought.

If you saw the Tom Dienhart report about the potential pods that had Ohio State & Michigan in separate pods. I DOUBT that it will happen and would hate to see that happen, but that is how it could potentially happen and still have an annual OSU/UM game by having a protected rival game as the 8th game.

Invasion of the Pod People?

 

[brodybuck21]

I would like to add the fact that "[censored] Penn State."

Twice.

In the ass.

kthxbai

GPA!

 

[BB73]

If the shakeout from expansion resulted in four 18-team super-conferences, each one could have two 9-team divisions that had a full round-robin of play determine a division champion. The 4 other games could be used to schedule traditional non-conference matchups, cupcakes to fund the athletic department, etc.

The 8 divisional winners would be determined by the full divisional schedule, with a 3-way (or more) tiebreaker being the only issue (head-to-head should be used for all 2-way ties).

The 4 CCGs could be played, then the 4 winners could be slotted into 2 of the major New Year's Day Bowls (on a rotating basis), then the 2 winners could meet in a Plus-One Title game that would replace the current 5th BCS Title game a week after the New Year's Day bowl games. No teams would be playing any longer than they are now, so the college presidents wouldn't have the excuse of academics preventing such a scenario.

72 teams could be included in this scenario (it would also work for 64, 66, 68, or 70 if some conferences only expanded to 16 and played 7 divisional games). Anybody not included in those conferences would be SOL (that would include a still-independent ND, if they so chose, and any Mtn West and Big East teams that didn't make the cut). They could form their own smaller division and have their own playoff that hardly anybody would care about.

I'm not saying I support such a scenario - I can see that it would make non-conference games of little importance (unless they factored into a 3-way tiebreaker for BCS-type rankings). I can also see such a system producing a 3-loss champion at some point.

But it's something that the playoff proponents can envision as an add-on to the conference expansion scenarios.

 

[Jaxbuck]

If the shakeout from expansion resulted in four 18-team super-conferences, each one could have two 9-team divisions that had a full round-robin of play determine a division champion. The 4 other games could be used to schedule traditional non-conference matchups, cupcakes to fund the athletic department, etc.

The 8 divisional winners would be determined by the full divisional schedule, with a 3-way (or more) tiebreaker being the only issue (head-to-head should be used for all 2-way ties).

The 4 CCGs could be played, then the 4 winners could be slotted into 2 of the major New Year's Day Bowls (on a rotating basis), then the 2 winners could meet in a Plus-One Title game that would replace the current 5th BCS Title game a week after the New Year's Day bowl games. No teams would be playing any longer than they are now, so the college presidents wouldn't have the excuse of academics preventing such a scenario.

72 teams could be included in this scenario (it would also work for 64, 66, 68, or 70 if some conferences only expanded to 16 and played 7 divisional games). Anybody not included in those conferences would be SOL (that would include a still-independent ND, if they so chose, and any Mtn West and Big East teams that didn't make the cut). They could form their own smaller division and have their own playoff that hardly anybody would care about.

I'm not saying I support such a scenario - I can see that it would make non-conference games of little importance (unless they factored into a 3-way tiebreaker for BCS-type rankings). I can also see such a system producing a 3-loss champion at some point.

But it's something that the playoff proponents can envision as an add-on to the conference expansion scenarios.

It really doesn't matter how we divide up the teams. If someone is a playoff proponent the 2 things they need to "fix" are the B10's odd number and ND's independence. In theory you can make 1 single move (ND to the B10) and have the natural platform in place to launch any number of playoff scenarios.

X number of conference champs to include the currently non-BCS schools if you want
y number of at large teams
exact format details TBD but that one move makes it very easy to set up from there.

I am not a fan of continued expansion or a playoff but I am also not a fan of pissing into the wind. This stuff is coming, just make it as sensible and efficient as possible is all I ask. (That and a seeding system that makes warm weather schools have to come north to play in December )