Big Ten and other Conference Expansion

[Zurp]

What will college football realignment look like in 10 years? Think consolidation, not expansion - Fox Sports

I like the concept, but it'll never happen. Mostly, all the schools who didn't make the cut: "Waaa! We want our shot!" But also, it limits the number of home games a team can have. Those 11 games will be 6 home, 5 away, or 5 home, 6 away. Add in a home game for that cupcake and you're averaging 6.5 home games a year. I think I read somewhere that athletic departments count on at least 7 home games a year.
I'd like to see the NFL format: 32 teams split into divisions of 4. Play everyone in your division twice, plus everyone in another division - that makes 10 games (5 home, 5 away). Add in 2 patsies to give yourself 7 home games a year.
This also would never happen.
Another one I'd like, but also will never happen:
Increase conference size to 18. Put 9 teams in the "A" division and 9 teams in the "B" division. Worst 3 teams in the "A" division drop to "B" and best 3 teams in "B" go up to "A". Play all 8 teams in your division every year. No conference championship game. If you want to play a team in the other division, it counts as a non-conference game.

 

[kujirakira]

I think the future is 4/16... CCGs are defacto Quarterfinals. 4 Champions go to Semis.
The question is just how we get there... ACC has 1 more spot, B1G and SEC 2 more, and PAC 4 more. Iowa State gonna be crying.

 

[Zurp]

I think the future is 4/16... CCGs are defacto Quarterfinals. 4 Champions go to Semis.
The question is just how we get there... ACC has 1 more spot, B1G and SEC 2 more, and PAC 4 more. Iowa State gonna be crying.

How great would it be if 3 conferences go to 16, and 1 refuses and stays at 14? Or 12? Fans of the other three conferences will whine that it's somehow easier to win in that league because of <insert funny excuse here>.

I'm not a fan of this format, though. It'll basically be 8 different conferences. You'd have 7 games tied up with your division, and at most 2 cross-division games. Then you'll get a 6-3 team (possibly 7-5 overall) winning its division - are they really worthy of being in the playoffs, if they happen to beat their opponent in the championship game?
I know it isn't the thread for this, but I really hate the idea of automatic bids. If you're going to grant automatic bids, you need to put some kinds of limits on it - I'd say that no team with 4 or more losses should be eligible for an automatic bid.

 

[scarletmike]

But Kentucky and Vandy would totally deserves those spots at 6-3 or worse, because SEC.

 

[kujirakira]

How great would it be if 3 conferences go to 16, and 1 refuses and stays at 14? Or 12? Fans of the other three conferences will whine that it's somehow easier to win in that league because of <insert funny excuse here>.

I'm not a fan of this format, though. It'll basically be 8 different conferences. You'd have 7 games tied up with your division, and at most 2 cross-division games. Then you'll get a 6-3 team (possibly 7-5 overall) winning its division - are they really worthy of being in the playoffs, if they happen to beat their opponent in the championship game?
I know it isn't the thread for this, but I really hate the idea of automatic bids. If you're going to grant automatic bids, you need to put some kinds of limits on it - I'd say that no team with 4 or more losses should be eligible for an automatic bid.

You have the exact same problem with the referenced Fox Sports format and especially your 4-team conference NFL format. We've seen sub-0.500 teams from that NFL format. Even worse with the 12-team wildcards.

 

[Zurp]

You have the exact same problem with the referenced Fox Sports format and especially your 4-team conference NFL format. We've seen sub-0.500 teams from that NFL format. Even worse with the 12-team wildcards.

Yeah. Making sense is for suckahs.

 

[Jaxbuck]

They should just make a rule that includes Ohio State in any playoffs and be done.

I'd be totally cool with it and it would give the CFP more flexibility

 

[cincibuck]

The Game definitely would be a potential casualty, and I hate the idea of a rematch.

Wouldn't have minded a replay with Michigan State for the CCG. Of course Iowa fans would have been in full outrage mode.

 

[ShowMeBuck]

Wouldn't have minded a replay with Michigan State for the CCG. Of course Iowa fans would have been in full outrage mode.

Oh the horror. An enraged Hawkeye.

 

[Jaxbuck]

Oh the horror. An enraged Hawkeye.

 

[cincibuck]

"Where's Forrest Evashevski when we really need him?"

 

[BayBuck]

B1G swallows up the CIC, which is now known as the Big Ten Academic Alliance:

The Committee on Institutional Cooperation is now the Big Ten Academic Alliance.

Our new name directly and succinctly explains who we are and what we do, and eliminates confusion with other CICs (e.g., the Council of Independent Colleges).

http://www.btaa.org/news-and-public...peration-is-now-the-big-ten-academic-alliance

FAQ

 

[Woody1968]

B1G swallows up the CIC, which is now known as the Big Ten Academic Alliance:



http://www.btaa.org/news-and-public...peration-is-now-the-big-ten-academic-alliance

FAQ

University of Chicago is no longer a member? That doesn't sound awesome.

 

[BuckTwenty]

Q. How will this affect the University of Chicago?

A. The University of Chicago has been an important partner to us for many decades. Although the University of Chicago will no longer be a formal member, our partnership will continue. We are working out the specifics around that in the coming weeks and months.

So they're not a formal member of this newly branded B1GAA, but they'll still have a "partnership" with the B1GAA? More clarification needed from B1G brass plz, thx

 

[Woody1968]

So they're not a formal member of this newly branded B1GAA, but they'll still have a "partnership" with the B1GAA? More clarification needed from B1G brass plz, thx

Yes, I have seen quotes where they say that Chicago's role is unchanged except for the name, but them no longer being a formal member seems to suggest that there is a fundamental change. For a move designed to make the function of the CIC clearer, this is even more confusing, IMO.