Big 12 Expansion (new thread)

Gonzo

Well-Known Member
Mar 10, 2009
18,256
16,970
113
Behind you
Fair enough although the flip side of this is that you aren't trading only the unexciting games for the Alliance ones. Like if they do the 3+5 thing, and Iowa is playing Neb/Minn/Wisc every year plus 5 of the remaining 10, then you're trading Michigan, Ohio State, Penn State just as much as you're trading Rutgers, Northwestern, Maryland. All for the right to play Virginia and Cal. Not sure that is an upgrade, although it does add more variety.

Again, I agree. That's part of my broader point, that Bowlsby saying B1G conference games are "better" than B1G teams playing OOC games v. Pac/ACC is baseless and silly. Sure, some conference games would be better, and some would be duds. Just like some OOC P5 games would be better, and others would be duds.
 

cykadelic2

Well-Known Member
Jun 10, 2006
2,683
668
113
That's a pretty big and generalized stretch. Sure I'd rather watch Indiana v. Purdue than Indiana v. Oregon St. But I'd much rather watch Iowa v. Oregon than Iowa v. Rutgers. Whether it's a ninth B1G conference game or an extra OOC game v. a Pac/ACC team, there are going to be good ones and there are going to be duds. Making the broad claim that one game is automatically better because it's a B1G opponent instead of a Pac/ACC opponent just seems baseless and kind of silly.
Bowlsby didn't make that claim as I clearly pointed out.
 

Gonzo

Well-Known Member
Mar 10, 2009
18,256
16,970
113
Behind you
Bowlsby didn't make that claim as I clearly pointed out.

According to your post on the previous page, Bowlsby said this:

The Big Ten and Pac-12, at least, are considering playing one less conference game (dropping from nine to eight) to improve their schedule strengths with more high-profile nonconference games. "Conference content is always going to be better than nonconference content," Bowlsby said.

I might have missed your clarification.
 

cykadelic2

Well-Known Member
Jun 10, 2006
2,683
668
113
I'll take a stab at this, while I am ignoring some work. Some fillers that are meaningless but mostly protecting rivalries here and then thinking about what makes sense.

Illinois: Ohio State, Northwestern, Purdue

Indiana: Michigan State, Purdue, Rutgers

Iowa: Minnesota, Nebraska, Wisconsin

Maryland: Northwestern, Penn State, Rutgers

Michigan: Michigan State, Minnesota, Ohio State

Michigan State: Indiana, Michigan, Penn State

Minnesota: Iowa, Michigan, Wisconsin

Nebraska: Iowa, Northwestern, Wisconsin

Northwestern: Illinois, Maryland, Nebraska

Ohio State: Illinois, Michigan, Penn State

Penn State: Maryland, Ohio State, Penn State

Purdue: Illinois, Indiana, Rutgers

Rutgers: Indiana, Maryland, Purdue

Wisconsin: Iowa, Minnesota, Nebraska
Try to lay out that scheduling model over a 4 year span and insure that all teams play each other home and home in that span. I question it can be successfully done.
 

cykadelic2

Well-Known Member
Jun 10, 2006
2,683
668
113
According to your post on the previous page, Bowlsby said this:

The Big Ten and Pac-12, at least, are considering playing one less conference game (dropping from nine to eight) to improve their schedule strengths with more high-profile nonconference games. "Conference content is always going to be better than nonconference content," Bowlsby said.

I might have missed your clarification.
See post #1,932
 
  • Like
Reactions: Raider

FriendlySpartan

Well-Known Member
Jul 26, 2021
922
928
93
35
Try to lay out that scheduling model over a 4 year span and insure that all teams play each other home and home in that span. I question it can be successfully done.
Yeah I would not want to be in charge of scheduling that. Also the matchups for alliance games might not be as straightforward as we think. Rumors are that the Big ten will still be letting individual teams schedule their non con so the top teams might not want to play each other every year and risk a loss. If the playoff expands this will change but right now there is a ton being thrown at the scheduling wall and it will be interesting to see what sticks.
 
  • Winner
Reactions: WhoISthis

CascadeClone

Well-Known Member
Oct 24, 2009
5,611
5,314
113
Elimination of divisions is overdue but reducing the number of conference games will still make the CCG matchups a mockery that will be based moreso on SOS and not on the quality of the top two teams.

This is a feature, not a bug.

Yes you will have a paper tiger every year that went 7-1 vs a randomly soft schedule. But then the actually good team will have a much easier path to win the CCG.

Just following the SEC's trailblazing path...
 

FriendlySpartan

Well-Known Member
Jul 26, 2021
922
928
93
35
This is a feature, not a bug.

Yes you will have a paper tiger every year that went 7-1 vs a randomly soft schedule. But then the actually good team will have a much easier path to win the CCG.

Just following the SEC's trailblazing path...
To be honest the big ten kinda already had that with the West winner never winning the championship game. Some years were competitive and some were like this season where the west team was hopelessly over matched
 

20eyes

Well-Known Member
May 15, 2020
1,610
2,328
113
47
To be honest the big ten kinda already had that with the West winner never winning the championship game. Some years were competitive and some were like this season where the west team was hopelessly over matched
O SNAP!!! MSU guy just said F&CK YOU to @Gonzo and his Hawkeyes...
 
  • Haha
Reactions: Gonzo

cyIclSoneU

Well-Known Member
Apr 7, 2016
2,458
3,122
113
In one you get 100%, in the other 50%. Unless I am missing something.

But it’s a wash. Take Iowa vs Maryland and Arizona State vs Utah. The B1G controls one of those games. Now take Iowa vs ASU and Utah vs Maryland. The B1G still controls one of those games.
 
  • Winner
Reactions: Hoggins

WhoISthis

Well-Known Member
Oct 6, 2010
4,641
2,821
113
Yeah I would not want to be in charge of scheduling that. Also the matchups for alliance games might not be as straightforward as we think. Rumors are that the Big ten will still be letting individual teams schedule their non con so the top teams might not want to play each other every year and risk a loss. If the playoff expands this will change but right now there is a ton being thrown at the scheduling wall and it will be interesting to see what sticks.
I’m not against removing divisions but the benefits are hard to know without knowing CFP format Imo.

It works better and makes sense in a 10 team, round robin format. In a 16 or even 14 team conference? Less so. Part of being in a conference or division or pod is knowing your base schedule, being better than your “peers”. It adds meaning.

I don’t think divisions hurt the chance of getting multiple bids, although it does likely make certain the champ is top-6 if that’s the CFP format. Think this year and if Ohio St had one loss (Michigan). Or Michigan St. Removing divisions isn’t helping the Big 10 get two bids, if anything divisions would have helped Michigan AND OSU get in the CFP by preventing a loss in Indy. But it would have prevented the small chance a Big 10 West team shoots the conference in the foot and there are zero BIG teams in the CFP

But these conferences removing divisions, having esoteric scheduling, and adding P12/ACC games is a step towards P2 super conferences. It’s breaking the old connections and making it seem less odd when Iowa’s soon in a pod with NU, MN, CU, Utah etc
 
Last edited:

FriendlySpartan

Well-Known Member
Jul 26, 2021
922
928
93
35
I’m not against removing divisions but the benefits are hard to know without knowing CFP format Imo.

It works better and makes sense in a 10 team, round robin format. In a 16 or even 14 team conference? Less so. Part of being in a conference or division or pod is knowing your base schedule, being better than your “peers”. It adds meaning.

I don’t think divisions hurt the chance of getting multiple bids, although it does likely make certain the champ is top-6 if that’s the CFP format. Think this year and if Ohio St had one loss (Michigan). Or Michigan St. Removing divisions isn’t helping the Big 10 get two bids, if anything divisions would have helped Michigan AND OSU get in the CFP by preventing a loss in Indy. But it would have prevented the small chance a Big 10 West team shoots the conference in the foot and there are zero BIG teams in the CFP

But these conferences removing divisions, having esoteric scheduling, and adding P12/ACC games is a step towards P2 super conferences. It’s breaking the old connections and making it seem less odd when Iowa’s soon in a pod with NU, MN, CU, Utah etc
Removing the divisions gets the two top ranked teams to play each other again in the championship which in theory should help 1 of those teams get in. Obv there are a hundred different scenarios each year that could back that up or invalidate that stance but it is part of it.

Also while I know expansion to a P2 has been your stance this whole time I cant keep reiterating enough how much the Big ten wants everything to stay exactly the way it is for now. After NIL gets straightened out and we have a new understanding of its effect on CFB maybe they would consider expansion but right now there is no indication of wanting to go to a P2.
 

SEIOWA CLONE

Well-Known Member
Dec 19, 2018
4,081
4,163
113
60
I’m not against removing divisions but the benefits are hard to know without knowing CFP format Imo.

It works better and makes sense in a 10 team, round robin format. In a 16 or even 14 team conference? Less so. Part of being in a conference or division or pod is knowing your base schedule, being better than your “peers”. It adds meaning.

I don’t think divisions hurt the chance of getting multiple bids, although it does likely make certain the champ is top-6 if that’s the CFP format. Think this year and if Ohio St had one loss (Michigan). Or Michigan St. Removing divisions isn’t helping the Big 10 get two bids, if anything divisions would have helped Michigan AND OSU get in the CFP by preventing a loss in Indy. But it would have prevented the small chance a Big 10 West team shoots the conference in the foot and there are zero BIG teams in the CFP

But these conferences removing divisions, having esoteric scheduling, and adding P12/ACC games is a step towards P2 super conferences. It’s breaking the old connections and making it seem less odd when Iowa’s soon in a pod with NU, MN, CU, Utah etc
The EIU reporter that wrote the story was on ESPN radio this morning. He said nothing is written in stone, just thinking about it.
The most important part for any of this to happen would be that the CFP would expand to 12, without that, nothing will change. He brought up Ohio State would be unwilling to play Mich, Penn St. and another team year, then turn around and play a Clemson or USC if only 4 teams were invited to the playoff. If it was expanded to 12, then a loss on the out of conference games would not matter. A team would still make the playoff just by getting to the conference championship game even if they lost.

If that occurs, then 3+5 model would be in play, 3 protected teams you play yearly, and 5 games that you would play a home and home with, and then the other five school. So, every team would play in your stadium at least once every four years.
When asked about current rival games like ISU/EIU, Louisville/Kentucy and others, he stated that those games would be kept as is. He did not think schools would be willing to play 11 P5 schools a season, so moving to 8 conference games allows for those rival games to continue to be played yearly, with one game each year from the alliance, and 2 cupcake games at home.
He said because games are already on the schedule years into the future, only playing one game vs the Pac 12 or ACC, a year, would allow those already scheduled games to be played.

The big issue they are trying to correct is that the SEC and ACC is now currently only playing 8 conference games and playing 9 in the B10 and Pac 12 was a disadvantage for the schools in those conference currently to make the playoff.
 

FriendlySpartan

Well-Known Member
Jul 26, 2021
922
928
93
35
The EIU reporter that wrote the story was on ESPN radio this morning. He said nothing is written in stone, just thinking about it.
The most important part for any of this to happen would be that the CFP would expand to 12, without that, nothing will change. He brought up Ohio State would be unwilling to play Mich, Penn St. and another team year, then turn around and play a Clemson or USC if only 4 teams were invited to the playoff. If it was expanded to 12, then a loss on the out of conference games would not matter. A team would still make the playoff just by getting to the conference championship game even if they lost.

If that occurs, then 3+5 model would be in play, 3 protected teams you play yearly, and 5 games that you would play a home and home with, and then the other five school. So, every team would play in your stadium at least once every four years.
When asked about current rival games like ISU/EIU, Louisville/Kentucy and others, he stated that those games would be kept as is. He did not think schools would be willing to play 11 P5 schools a season, so moving to 8 conference games allows for those rival games to continue to be played yearly, with one game each year from the alliance, and 2 cupcake games at home.
He said because games are already on the schedule years into the future, only playing one game vs the Pac 12 or ACC, a year, would allow those already scheduled games to be played.

The big issue they are trying to correct is that the SEC and ACC is now currently only playing 8 conference games and playing 9 in the B10 and Pac 12 was a disadvantage for the schools in those conference currently to make the playoff.
Got to push back on what that reporter said because that is exactly what OSU is doing right now. They played Mich, PSU, Sparty, and Oregon. Michigan did the same thing by scheduling washington although they were clearly overrated, PSU scheduled aubrun and sparty scheduled Miami. Divisions are 100% going away but its the alliance scheduling that is in question as well as the protected rivalry's.