Realignment Megathread (All The Moves)

[simply1]

UCF will kill it now that they have a seat at the table. UCF has a good coach too. They'll contend for big 12 titles within 3 years.

UCFSports - UCF's 2024 recruiting class moves into top 25

With a pair of high-profile commitments Tuesday, UCF's recruiting class is now ranked inside the top 25.

ucf.rivals.com

That can be a downside to elevating g5 teams, more competition for spots at the table.

Hopefully it just solidifies the big 12 though.

 

[Gorm]

was it SEC pecking order

Auburn's place in that pecking order continues to slide down with the additions of Texas and Oklahoma.

 

[PickSix]

Canzano makes it sound like the Pac-12's erroneous 50 mil per year valuation came from Utah.

Very interesting. Makes sense why their President stood side by side with GK until the last possible second. He probably realized he and his professor screwed up big time.

Canzano: Truth behind the Pac-12's misfire

President steps forward to issue statement.

www.johncanzano.com

 

[LLCoolCY]

Canzano makes it sound like the Pac-12's erroneous 50 mil per year valuation came from Utah.

Very interesting. Makes sense why their President stood side by side with GK until the last possible second. He probably realized he and his professor screwed up big time.

Canzano: Truth behind the Pac-12's misfire

President steps forward to issue statement.

www.johncanzano.com

Utah overvaluing their brand...
consider me shocked. Shocked!
Well, not that shocked.

 

[KnappShack]

Canzano makes it sound like the Pac-12's erroneous 50 mil per year valuation came from Utah.

Very interesting. Makes sense why their President stood side by side with GK until the last possible second. He probably realized he and his professor screwed up big time.

Canzano: Truth behind the Pac-12's misfire

President steps forward to issue statement.

www.johncanzano.com

The post mortem of the PAC is a **** show from start to finish.

Even the clown author of the article was played and should be sent into the wilderness

 

[Cloneon]

The ESPN+ thread triggered me. Maybe it's just me, but whenever I see NBC in there, I think of the media strategists, trying to manipulate ND to the B1G. Also, of note, that article yesterday about the P12's internal gaffes during their demise wreaked of the media manipulating that as well. But, even bigger was the misreported B1G payouts. I think that'll loom in the near future for the media companies to try to recuperate in all kinds of ways (eg. more advertising, consolidation of debt, leasing out games, etc). Realignment is not done. It's just taking a short breather. But, I guarantee, the talk in the back channels is still full-on strong.

 

[GoldCy]

If you look at the number of pac games on their network and times of t he games, all the teams will get better spots with the conference closing. Even wsu & osu would be better off in mwc. Scott really screwed the conference in a way they couldn't recover. Wonder where he's getting a 5M salary now.

 

[SolterraCyclone]

Iowa State would have to have decades of success to attract a high number (6+) of 4 star recruits in a recruiting class.

The state of Iowa is lucky if there are even 10 power conference recruits a year. And most of those kids are 3 star. Those figures pale states like TX, FL and even OH, PA and MI.

IMO schools in states that produce a small number of power conference football players will always need to be developmental programs, turning 3 star recruits into All-Conference players.

I don't put a lot of credence in school recruit rankings because they make a school ranked #25 appear significantly better than a school ranked #50.

Last year based on 247:

• The Huskers were team #25 with 4 four-star, 24 three-star recruits and an average score of 87.26.
• UCF was ranked #50 with 3 four-star, 12 three-star recruits and an average score of 87.79.
• Iowa State was ranked #44 with 1 four-star, 21 three-star recruits and an average score of 86.63

Is Nebraska's class(87.26) significantly better than Iowa State (86.63) or UCF (87.79) or Iowa (2/20 & 86.79)? What matters is what the coaches do once the kids get on campus.

Recruit rankings do matter, but in ranges:

• Tier 1 - Schools ranked 1-10
• Tier 2 - Schools 11-25
• Tier 3 - Schools 26- 75

So that's why I don't get worried if ISU is #30 or #60. A good staff can turn a recruiting class ranked #50 to a team ranked #15 on the field.

Great post! I’ll also add, we’re not working with financial models here. These are subjective rankings done by a small sample size of talent evaluators based on an incomplete, small set of data points.

NFL teams probably put double to triple the amount of time evaluating fewer potential draft picks with greater visibility and look how often they are wrong (overrating and underrating). There is wayyy too much emphasis put on recruiting rankings. IMO it’s because that’s where these sites best get clicks

 

[SolterraCyclone]

The post mortem of the PAC is a **** show from start to finish.

Even the clown author of the article was played and should be sent into the wilderness

100%. I am waiting for the Wilner, Canzano and Mandel articles taking some responsibility in this mess.

The PAC media could have pressed the P12 presidents way harder. Would that have gotten the presidents to agree to a deal? Don’t know. But they certainly felt no pressure to expedite a deal when the PAC media decided to be PR mouthpieces rather than actual journalists

 

[KidSilverhair]

Of course, conference realignment is smart and cool, it will grow the sport in so many ways, who cares if the things college football fans really care about get trashed, it’s all about how much money we can make, bay-beee!!!!

(“Oh, don’t worry, we’ll set it up so everybody gets to see everybody in the conference every four years or so. We just can’t promise that’ll be in your stadium, too bad, so sad”)

(This post is not a defense of Iowa, per se, but Mike Hlas just kinda sums up why realignment sucks for actual fans of what makes college football great)

 

[Clark]

Of course, conference realignment is smart and cool, it will grow the sport in so many ways, who cares if the things college football fans really care about get trashed, it’s all about how much money we can make, bay-beee!!!!

(“Oh, don’t worry, we’ll set it up so everybody gets to see everybody in the conference every four years or so. We just can’t promise that’ll be in your stadium, too bad, so sad”)

(This post is not a defense of Iowa, per se, but Mike Hlas just kinda sums up why realignment sucks for actual fans of what makes college football great)

View attachment 117763

They went several years without playing Illinois earlier in the 10's. None of those teams are rivals so does it really matter if you're playing USC instead of Michigan or UCLA instead of Illinois?

I suppose in the case for Illinois that would theoretically be drivable but how many people does that actually impact?

 

[KidSilverhair]

They went several years without playing Illinois earlier in the 10's. None of those teams are rivals so does it really matter if you're playing USC instead of Michigan or UCLA instead of Illinois?

I suppose in the case for Illinois that would theoretically be drivable but how many people does that actually impact?

The B1G’s scheduling models have pretty much sucked ever since Penn State joined, and they’ve been even worse since they went to divisions. So let’s screw them up even more by building up an unwieldy and unsustainable Frankenstein conference! Sounds great! Fans will love it!

Wired: having a conference with two-dozen-ish teams that spans the entire continent, setting up cool attention-grabbing matchups like Washington-Rutgers or UCF-Arizona, having conference “mates” play a couple of times every decade, just because networks are backing up semi-trailer loads of cash

Tired: having conferences that actually have long-standing regional connections, with most (or all) games within driving distance, supporting fan interest and continuity while acknowledging the importance of conference members actually facing each other every year

 

[Gonzo]

Of course, conference realignment is smart and cool, it will grow the sport in so many ways, who cares if the things college football fans really care about get trashed, it’s all about how much money we can make, bay-beee!!!!

(“Oh, don’t worry, we’ll set it up so everybody gets to see everybody in the conference every four years or so. We just can’t promise that’ll be in your stadium, too bad, so sad”)

(This post is not a defense of Iowa, per se, but Mike Hlas just kinda sums up why realignment sucks for actual fans of what makes college football great)

View attachment 117763

No matter what scheduling system is put in place, people will find a reason to b*tch and sling arrows. If Iowa were to play Illinois and NW more often than USC the next five years, he'd probably be moaning about why Iowa gets stuck with them and why can't we play USC and UCLA more often.

Iowa is going to play each of the 17 other B1G programs at least 2 times every 5 years, in some cases (like USC) 3 times. I think that's a pretty reasonable solution to an 18-team conference schedule. And I'd much prefer playing USC than NW or Illinois.

 

[LonelyCyKC]

No matter what scheduling system is put in place, people will find a reason to b*tch and sling arrows. If Iowa were to play Illinois and NW more often than USC the next five years, he'd probably be moaning about why Iowa gets stuck with them and why can't we play USC and UCLA more often.

Iowa is going to play each of the 17 other B1G programs at least 2 times every 5 years, in some cases (like USC) 3 times. I think that's a pretty reasonable solution to an 18-team conference schedule. And I'd much prefer playing USC than NW or Illinois.

Hey, California is much nicer in December than Illinois.... Burrrrr!

 

[KnappShack]

Hey, California is much nicer in December than Illinois.... Burrrrr!

And January and February and March and April and and and

 

[2speedy1]

Of course, conference realignment is smart and cool, it will grow the sport in so many ways, who cares if the things college football fans really care about get trashed, it’s all about how much money we can make, bay-beee!!!!

(“Oh, don’t worry, we’ll set it up so everybody gets to see everybody in the conference every four years or so. We just can’t promise that’ll be in your stadium, too bad, so sad”)

(This post is not a defense of Iowa, per se, but Mike Hlas just kinda sums up why realignment sucks for actual fans of what makes college football great)

View attachment 117763

Hate to say it but this is why the designated rivalry scheduling system is worse than pods.

In a pod system, at 16 teams, and 9 conference games, you play everyone in the conference every other year, and your own pod every year.

I know people hate to believe it, but when you get into all the protected rivals, you end up with very unequal and unpredictable schedules.

For instance 4 pods of 4, you play everyone in your pod, then 2 teams from the other 3 pods, that rotate each year.

this is more difficult at 18 teams, unfortunately.

At 16 teams you play everyone every other year, very easy and predictable schedule.

At 20 teams:
your own pod 1 = 4 games
play all of pod 2 = 5 games, next year pod 3, next year pod 4, then back to 2.
You play everyone every 3 years. simple and predictable schedule.

or similar.

With the protected rivals, and everyone having different rivals, the schedule is unbalanced, difficult and unpredictable. And you end up having difficulty scheduling everyone with regularity.

 

[qwerty]

 

[werdnamanhill]

Hate to say it but this is why the designated rivalry scheduling system is worse than pods.

In a pod system, at 16 teams, and 9 conference games, you play everyone in the conference every other year, and your own pod every year.

I know people hate to believe it, but when you get into all the protected rivals, you end up with very unequal and unpredictable schedules.

For instance 4 pods of 4, you play everyone in your pod, then 2 teams from the other 3 pods, that rotate each year.

this is more difficult at 18 teams, unfortunately.

At 16 teams you play everyone every other year, very easy and predictable schedule.

At 20 teams:
your own pod 1 = 4 games
play all of pod 2 = 5 games, next year pod 3, next year pod 4, then back to 2.
You play everyone every 3 years. simple and predictable schedule.

or similar.

With the protected rivals, and everyone having different rivals, the schedule is unbalanced, difficult and unpredictable. And you end up having difficulty scheduling everyone with regularity.

That's not really true though...in pods some pods will be better than others leading to unequal schedules. And I don't see how having a protected rivals makes it any more difficult to schedule teams with regularity. It doesn't really make a difference.

 

[KidSilverhair]

That's not really true though...in pods some pods will be better than others leading to unequal schedules. And I don't see how having a protected rivals makes it any more difficult to schedule teams with regularity. It doesn't really make a difference.

Pods are just smaller divisions by another name, that’s all.

But frankly, there’s simply no good way to build a conference schedule when you have 16-18-20-24 freaking members. That’s no longer a “conference,” for Pete’s sake, and we need to stop saying that it is.

 

[2speedy1]

That's not really true though...in pods some pods will be better than others leading to unequal schedules. And I don't see how having a protected rivals makes it any more difficult to schedule teams with regularity. It doesn't really make a difference.

There will always be unequal schedules no matter what you do.

Problem is with the protected rivalries, you end up where some teams dont play the others for years especially if there is no "scheduling rules" put in place that requires certain things.

I do like protected rivalries, but I just think for certain number of teams, it works better to use pods. 16 teams it really works well, 20 it works ok, beyond those 2 not so much.

Frankly once it gets so big, it really is easier to just have 2 sub conferences that only play each other in the championship. But then all the problems of one conference being better than the other again.