B1G/PAC 12 Partnership
- Thread starter jcal2001
- Start date
Pretty easy to read between the lines that NFL 2.0 Commissioner Scott thinks this is conference expansion with less legal risk.
puke
puke
Many on the Rutgers boards think this partnership is also a ploy to force ND to make a decision by stripping it of its traditional games in the B1G (Michigan, Michigan State, Purdue) and in the Pac-12 (Stanford, USC). With the proposed collaboration, each team would have 8 conference games, 1 B1G/Pac12 cross conference game, and 1 1aa tune up game. This only leaves 2 spots for OOC games. Those teams playing ND every year will have MUCH less flexibility in scheduling.
There is some speculation that all this is done is to kick the conference raiding up to 2015 instead of 2013... 1 view is that Texas is sticking around to help strengthen the B12 (to prevent any issues with Texas Tech from arising) but will leave with Oklahoma to join the Pac 12 in 2-15-2017.
Similarly ND and Rutgers would join the B1G. ND would join to ensure all their major rivalries continue as well as to become part of a STRONG national conference (B1G/Pac12 collaboration). Rutgers is a no brainer complementary piece to go along with ND. Rutgers would have joined the B1G if Nebraska hadn't expressed interest. Word was that legal papers were in the process of being signed when Nebraska expressed interest...
With this new conference realignment the new BE and new B12 would join in a similar "collaboration" with each other. Similarly the SEC and ACC (more stable then B12) would also "collaborate". The Big East and Big 12 would absorb members including independents to each get to 14.
With 14 teams in each conference you get 2 7-team divisions with 6 division games, 1 permanent cross division rival and 2 rotating cross division games for a total of 9 conference games. Then the 10th game is a rotating cross conference game due to collaboration. The 11th game is a 1aa type tune up game with the 12th being an OOC home and home game.
Anyway this is all just speculation on what the true end game is... It may or may not happen... If it does happen, the rich will keep getting richer and the poor will keep getting poorer...
Our take on this
There is some speculation that all this is done is to kick the conference raiding up to 2015 instead of 2013... 1 view is that Texas is sticking around to help strengthen the B12 (to prevent any issues with Texas Tech from arising) but will leave with Oklahoma to join the Pac 12 in 2-15-2017.
Similarly ND and Rutgers would join the B1G. ND would join to ensure all their major rivalries continue as well as to become part of a STRONG national conference (B1G/Pac12 collaboration). Rutgers is a no brainer complementary piece to go along with ND. Rutgers would have joined the B1G if Nebraska hadn't expressed interest. Word was that legal papers were in the process of being signed when Nebraska expressed interest...
With this new conference realignment the new BE and new B12 would join in a similar "collaboration" with each other. Similarly the SEC and ACC (more stable then B12) would also "collaborate". The Big East and Big 12 would absorb members including independents to each get to 14.
With 14 teams in each conference you get 2 7-team divisions with 6 division games, 1 permanent cross division rival and 2 rotating cross division games for a total of 9 conference games. Then the 10th game is a rotating cross conference game due to collaboration. The 11th game is a 1aa type tune up game with the 12th being an OOC home and home game.
Anyway this is all just speculation on what the true end game is... It may or may not happen... If it does happen, the rich will keep getting richer and the poor will keep getting poorer...
Our take on this
Last edited:
Shhhh....Don't let them in on that little secret. They think they are right there with them...
Wow, you must hate your basketball recruiting class, then....
Actually, I agree with the sentiment.
It has nothing to do with whether or not Iowa will be good, no.
Let's recap your argument shall we...
you said:
"You are high if you think Iowa doesn't struggle to get to 7 wins with that schedule" (post 31)
I showed where Iowa played a tougher schedule and got to 10 wins (post 36)you replied:
"Ummm, Iowa was good in 2009" (post 64)
To which I stated that it's possible Iowa will be good in 2013. (post 78)
What is it exactly that you are disagreeing with here?
My guess is you forgot how tough that schedule was in 2009 (and have no idea what the schedules looked like in 2002 or 2004). That's not a bad thing, mind you, especially considering you're an ISU fan.
However, before you make a comment like the first one shown above, you should at least give a passing glance to some of Iowa's previous schedules. I learned this leasson the hard way arguing with Al.
Ok, let me make this really simple.
1. Iowa is no longer as good as they were in 2009. So that argument that they can somehow handle a strong schedule in 2013 and 2014 because they did so in 2009 is ********. Bringing up 2002 and 2004? Seriously? Maybe I should bring up those back to back Big 12 championships from 00' and 01' in the basketball forum in reference to how good ISU will be in a few years...
2. Is it possible Iowa will be good in 2013. Sure. Is the program, in the eyes of pretty much everybody that is not a complete homer, slipping back at a pretty alarming clip? Yes, it is.
3. Is Iowa losing the best defensive coach probably in the programs history and one of the bedrocks of the program over KF's tenure? Yes. Is KoK still coaching the offense? Yes.
4. See #1, again. Past schedules, and the performace in them, has NOTHING to do with future schedules. None. To pretend as if they do would be to pretend that Iowa's program is where it was in those years...it is very obviously not. ISU may very well slip back next year (I don't think, but maybe) because next years team is different than this years.
5. Programs rise and programs fall. Always will. Iowa is falling...ISU is rising. That's not blatent homerism that would be the view of any unbias outside observer. This is what I'm basing my argument on...that Iowa's football program is indeed not getting better but getting worse. Pretty much every hawk friend I have is saying this..I hear it everytime I talk with them so I really don't think I'm being some ISU homer by repeating what a significant portion of your fan base is already saying.
You're still not getting it.
1. If you're saying it's not a valid argument that Iowa can handle a tough schedule based on 2009's results, how can you make a valid argument on whether Iowa can handle a tough schedule on 2011's results? Neither of those team's are going to play 2013's schedule. You're chastising him for the exact same thing you're doing.
2. You could have said the same thing looking at the 06 and 07 timeframe. Then 08 and 09 happened. No one is saying it's a guarantee that it will turn around again, but it can. It's not a lock Iowa will suck 2 years down the road (or that all the opponents will still be at a high level for that matter).
3. This is really your only solid point. And it is a doozy, and the most damning piece of evidence against Iowa.
4. So past performance doesn't necessarily indicate future performance. Got it. 2009 =/ 2013. But then, why is 2011 a guarantee of 2013?
5. Um, ok. Iowa's program is on a downward trend for the past two years. The two years before it, is was on the way up. The two or three before that, down. The three previous up.
I'm not sure what your point is, but a lot of your arguments seems to be at odds with themselves. Yes Iowa is on the decline right now. But those trends aren't set in stone (if they were, why didn't Iowa keep going up after 02-04 or 08-09 or keep going down after 06-07?).
There's probably a better chance that you're right than not, but your arguments seem quite flawed.
Well, I went out of my way to say that Iowa could very well have a good season in 2013. I don't know for sure if they will or not. But the argument I AM using is based on the 'direction' of the program...I'm not basing future results on anything but two things. 1. What direction does the program seem to be going and 2. the strength of the schedule in the future. So no, I'm not arguing past results will determine future results as Clark is.
Going back to original point, before this got very diluted, Iowa's schedule gets much more difficult in the future for them. So my point is even if Iowa gets better as a program they may not see those 9-10 win season that they have in the past. You add a Pac 12 team (a conference Iowa is not traditionally strong against) on top of it along with a resurging ISU program and how could possibly not question the success Iowa may or may not have in the coming years? Certainly I don't expect Iowa to fall off the map and start winning 4-5 games a year.
Hawkeyeguy did a good job of responding to your other post so I'll just skip that one.
The bolded part just cracks me up. My entire point is that the schedule doesn't actually get that much more difficult than it has in the past. I have not said that Iowa will win 10 games in 2013, just that it's moronic to look at a schedule 2 years in advance and say that they'd be lucky to win 7 games without knowing who will be playing on Iowa's team let alone how good any of those teams are going to be.
We finally got to your actual meaning in your previous post. You believe Iowa is falling. I don't. We'll see who is right in 2013.
You must have missed the part about Pac-12 commissioners roundly rejecting OU and Texas. They've flirted with the idea twice and walked away every time. There's a reason.
