Big Ten and other Conference Expansion

[jwinslow]

Some "concession"

Except CCG-based conferences don't merely play divisional games. They could choose to do so but they you basically have two separate conferences which meet up for one game, thereby making the conference smaller for most b10 teams, not bigger.

The trade-off here is in order to promise Texas one less game, you have to make that happen for someone else.

 

[Buckeyeskickbuttocks]

Except CCG-based conferences don't merely play divisional games.

16 team conferences might as well. Hard to say that they dont, since we've never seen one.

This gets back to my thought that this is all designed to implement a playoff without implementing a playoff. You have 64 teams (4 mega conf.) pair down their 8 to 2, who meet in a champ game. Those 4 winners go to the bowl games, and now you're a +1 game from a "true" national champion.

That said, I dont think Ohio State, for example, should be precluded from playing Nebraska (assuming they're in separate divisions) - but I could see it being the "future"

 

[kn1f3party]

Per Rivals.com article:

What was once unthinkable has, apparently, come to pass. Texas A&M and the University of Texas, barring the unforeseen or political activity, will be heading their separate ways in 2011. The Aggies will be the newest member of the Southeastern Conference.

Aggieyell.com has confirmed through multiple sources that Pac-10 Commissioner Larry Scott met with members of the A&M Board of Regents in College Station Sunday morning. At that meeting, the Scott was informed that the board would be declining the conference's offer to join. Scott was the second conference head to visit College Station this weekend, with the SEC's Mike Slive being the first.

 

[Buckeyeskickbuttocks]

I can't recall, but didn't Chip say A&M was all but a done deal to the Pac 10 before last week's end?

I say that only to suggest that maybe he's, as has been suggested by others, being "played" in this whole situation.

 

[MondayAMGenius]

There are many threads of conversation within this thread, many of them reaching back days at a time. So it may not be true that you should HAVE made your post an hour ago. Don't be so hard on yourself. It's not like you're obsessed with grammar (but obviously not spelling) like I am.

Should've.... thanks sister mary!

 

[Oh8ch]

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.

I wanted to go back to this pod system - because I am really starting to like it.

You could make this work with 7 conference games (the number we played prior to 1971). You play the three teams in your pod, the four teams from your paired pod and that is it. That way everybody in a division plays the same conference schedule and there is no more "Iowa didn't have to play OSU or PSU".

You play every team in the conference at least every three years and host every team at least every six years.

And here is the twist that makes it work - If you want to schedule other games against teams from the other two pods have at it. But those games don't count in the conference standings. This allows you to keep all those inter-pod rivalries going without creating a scheduling cluster****.

Texas is happy. ND is happy.

 

[Buckeyeskickbuttocks]

I wanted to go back to this pod system - because I am really starting to like it.

You could make this work with 7 conference games (the number we played prior to 1971). You play the three teams in your pod, the four teams from your paired pod and that is it. That way everybody in a division plays the same conference schedule and there is no more "Iowa didn't have to play OSU or PSU".

You play every team in the conference at least every three years and host every team at least every six years.

And here is the twist that makes it work - If you want to schedule other games against teams from the other two pods have at it. But those games don't count in the conference standings. This allows you to keep all those inter-pod rivalries going without creating a scheduling cluster****.

Texas is happy. ND is happy.

That's even better than the way I was looking at it.... and it even has the "appearance" of making a concession to Texas.

 

[DaddyBigBucks]

I wanted to go back to this pod system - because I am really starting to like it.

You could make this work with 7 conference games (the number we played prior to 1971). You play the three teams in your pod, the four teams from your paired pod and that is it. That way everybody in a division plays the same conference schedule and there is no more "Iowa didn't have to play OSU or PSU".

You play every team in the conference at least every three years and host every team at least every six years.

And here is the twist that makes it work - If you want to schedule other games against teams from the other two pods have at it. But those games don't count in the conference standings. This allows you to keep all those inter-pod rivalries going without creating a scheduling cluster****.

Texas is happy. ND is happy.

My only problem with the pod system is that, with an odd number of games within your own pod, some members are getting more home games than others (within the pod).

I have to admit though - this isn't a big deal for me. I readily acknowledge that there is going to be bitching and moaning no matter what you do, so it really doesn't matter what excuse people use for the whining.

 

[Colvinnl]

Hope you don't mind if I use this to change the subject a bit. What am I saying, of course you don't mind. I am you (one of you anyway).

One distinct possibility is that the BCS rearranges things out of necessity, and the 10 bids (if 10 is still the number of bids) are split up thus:

• BIG TEN (plus 6)
  • 2 automatic bids
• SEC (now w/ 16)
  • 2 automatic bids
• PAC-16
  • 2 automatic bids (at least 1, depends on who they add)
• ACC/BE remains
  • 1 automatic bid (maybe 2, but don't deserve 2)
• Mountain West
  • 1 automatic bid
• At Large Bids
  • A requirement that you must play 9 games against teams from AQ conferences which now would comprise about 80 teams. (OK - this part is what I'm hoping for, because...)
  • If enough teams refuse to play independents OOC, then ND is SOL

I say get rid of automatic bids. If the BCS rankings are accurate, let the top 10 play in the BCS bowls. That will almost always cover all the big conferences.

 

[Oh8ch]

My only problem with the pod system is that, with an odd number of games within your own pod, some members are getting more home games than others (within the pod).

I have to admit though - this isn't a big deal for me. I readily acknowledge that there is going to be bitching and moaning no matter what you do, so it really doesn't matter what excuse people use for the whining.

Good point. But FWIW this is how it worked prior to 1971 - so there is precedent. And IMO it is at least as fair as one team having their cross division game against Texas while another has theirs against Indiana.

(Damn - when they started this whole realignment thing I only had 12 posts to my credit. Look at me now.)

 

[Hawk Spielman]

It now appears the direction of OU seems to be the linchpin in this whole scenario. If they go to the PAC10 I have to believe UT will follow them. If they join the SEC then Texas has no more leverage nor incentive to go to the PAC10.

I wouldn't be surprised if the Big 10 holds it's nose and invites OU in a package deal with Texas.......interesting times in college athletics right now.

 

[Dryden]

My only problem with the pod system is that, with an odd number of games within your own pod, some members are getting more home games than others (within the pod).

I have to admit though - this isn't a big deal for me. I readily acknowledge that there is going to be bitching and moaning no matter what you do, so it really doesn't matter what excuse people use for the whining.

Pac 10 has been playing nine conference games, and I've never heard of this being an issue there.

 

[Dryden]

It now appears the direction of OU seems to be the linchpin in this whole scenario. If they go to the PAC10 I have to believe UT will follow them.

UT isn't following Oklahoma anywhere. It's been widely reported in realignment discussions about Oklahoma that it's the other way around.

If A&M, Tech and Baylor were UT's little sisters, Oklahoma was retarded brother Darryl (with his other brother Okie Darryl).

 

[Buckeyeskickbuttocks]

It now appears the direction of OU seems to be the linchpin in this whole scenario. If they go to the PAC10 I have to believe UT will follow them.

Why?

If they join the SEC then Texas has no more leverage nor incentive to go to the PAC10.

I wouldn't be surprised if the Big 10 holds it's nose and invites OU in a package deal with Texas.......interesting times in college athletics right now.

You're probably right re: leverage regardless of the answer to my question "why?" I also could see the Big 10 holding it's nose and taking OU. Actually, I could see them holding their nose and taking TTU too, if it lands UT. (I have had the thought the Big 10 might have told UT, we'll take A&M or we'll take TTU, but we can't take both.)

Edit: I don't believe the Big 10 would take both TTU and OU to get Texas, though. We have to keep in mind, this isn't JUST a football decision.

 

[jlb1705]

UT isn't following Oklahoma anywhere. It's been widely reported in realignment discussions about Oklahoma that it's the other way around.

If A&M, Tech and Baylor were UT's little sisters, Oklahoma was retarded brother Darryl (with his other brother Okie Darryl).

Oklahoma's the little brother that's in and out of jail. No thanks. My objection to them isn't academics, it's the constant cheating.