Realignment Megathread (All The Moves)
- Thread starter ISUcyclones11
- Start date
Can I ask why? Opening things up to 12 allows for multiple loss teams to get in. At that point in order to separate yourself it will be about who you have beaten (or should be) so that is why I think you could see more. Also from a ratings stand point no one wants to watch a ranked team massacre a creampuff
No, it comes down to rankings. The big ten has a vast array of the old media hubs in their footprint, one reason why it has/will get the benefit of the doubt between two teams. The top 6 conferences get in and then the next 6 highest ranked. How many times do you see a 2 loss team above a 1 loss team (both from the P5) in the rankings. Not often. So it comes down to who the voters perceive to be better between teams with similar losses. The old names will get that benefit. Hence the big ten with OSU/Mich/PSU/USC will get a better nod than the big 12 team.
I do agree that this is where the Big12 will get hurt the most from a perception problem but after those 6 auto bids finishing out the top 12 will take a much more deeper dive then wins/loses. Would a 2 loss Iowa who beat no one get in over a two loss team with multiple ranked wins? Kinda doubt it. Beefing up that OOC schedule can help. Also with the addition of OUT that is two more potentially good teams in the SEC that will give out some losses. Really won’t know until we see how the new additions perform and if there ends up being a bit more parity with NIL etc.
Iowa isn't going to beef up its OOC schedule with more legit P5 opponents, even with a 12-team playoff.
I didn’t expect Iowa too, got to be able to score a touchdown on a FCS opponent first
Lol, true. But in addition to that our AD and HC are big giant p*ssies when it comes to scheduling.
I used ranked when they played them because that's how the schedules get marked but it wouldn't make a giant difference. Big Ten East teams play significantly tougher schedules than Pac 12, Big Ten west teams often play a softer football schedule than Pac 12 and the other major conferences.
The Big Ten isn't stacked in football or basketball, it's has a very good top half football conference lately, with a pretty weak bottom half.
I really don't think USC is going to play a ton more ranked teams in conference than they used to unless the giant bath of money suddenly makes Rutgers/Illinois/Maryland/Nebraska way better. They'll still get about 2 a year on average the same way the Hawkeyes do.
Unless you want to structure the Big Ten so the power teams play each other way more and the bad/average teams only play other bad/average teams. Are you keeping divisions and USC is going in the East? Swapping Rutgers and Wisc too? Then they might get your 5 games a year against ranked teams, but even then 6 is hyperbole.
If B10 added USC/UCLA but had never brought on Maryland/Rutgers/Nebraska we could be talking about a stacked deep league. As is, there is a lot of average and bad.
I think SEC and B10 teams will trend toward cream puff non-conf except some of those Big Ten teams might hold onto their ND game. Iowa might hold onto ISU game. Not saying ISU is historically great but tougher out than scheduling MAC or FCS.
I think they'll do this because their clearest path to new playoff is those 6 at large bids. The SBC has already shown they'll change rules week to week and year to year to get the Big Ten in. They don't need non-conf marquee games, they just need 3/4 Ws and avoid losses. Especially SEC doesn't need non conf for SOS, just 8 or 9 SEC games is always going to be enough for SOS.
When you look at ACC, Big 12, MWC and AAC...I think those schools will try hard to schedule tougher better games in non conf. They know the SBC will screw them over in a heartbeat with a grin, not worth focusing on those at large bids even if they deserve a few. The path is the auto bid and a non conf loss means nothing for the auto bid. I don't mention Pac because I think it's so unlikely they even exist but throw them in there too.
It will be interesting to see how ACC and B12 schedule strength compare to SEC and B1G in these years before they SEC/B10 break up the ACC, like next year's schedules until the year of ACC exodus. Over past decade or so with the Big Ten being solid and SEC only playing 8 games the SOS #s between B10, B12 and SEC are actually kind of a wash, no huge difference. ACC and Pac have been a little lower.
Divisions are going away before USC joins and I have heard so many different scenarios that I don’t know which is most likely. Illinois and Maryland could rise and Rutgers just doesn’t have to be an embarrassment. Their win over BC was nice. If the top stays at the top (really need Penn state to start actually performing) all you need is a good size mid tier of teams that rotate being good. Kinda like the SEC has with SC, Kentucky, Tenn, etc. Those teams aren’t great every year but every once in awhile things align and they put together a good season to complement the top 2/3.
We all follow Iowa at least somewhat here. A randomized or evenly rotating schedule is going to mean less wins for them and a tougher path. For your MSU a randomized/evenly rotating schedule probably weakens your schedule and ups your win total.
Just how randomized is the schedule going to be? If Michigan and Ohio St are USC's protected rivals...yeah USC is going to play a big time conference schedule every season now.
If they just get 9 of 15 random or evenly rotating opponents...I don't really see that as a step up from USC's last few years of schedules. Plus I assume they keep playing ND every year like always. Now if the unlimited money lifts all boats maybe the bad teams aren't as bad in 5-10 years, who knows. Personally I doubt the money makes the mid and bottom tier B10 teams that much better, they've already been getting the most media money. SEC has less perennial down teams but I think the same way that Vandy and Miss St aren't suddenly going to be on more equal footing with Bama and LSU.
I do think USC will get more real EYEBALLS on their games because they'll be playing more road games in regions where people actually like college sports. It'll be like they get 2-3 of their Notre Dame games a year in terms of real interest and real viewers.
Isn’t it all about home games for them. Got to have 7 or more? And that pretty much rules home and homes against other P5s out. Instead it’s FCS, Iowa State, and a buy game against a MAC team (or MAC equivalent) every year.
One of the most common scheduling changes is 3 protected rivalries. USC would not be one of Michigans in my opinion but could be one of OSU’s. Michigan has been clamoring for MSU, OSU, and Rutgers as their three. I feel like as long as you kept the two most popular rivalry games and then had a steady rotation then teams would be happy. I totally agree that money in and of itself won’t raise the lower teams but it could allow them to keep a good coach that they find. Give schools like Illinois a good coach and they can make some noise every once in awhile.
Your point is absolutely valid. Hawaii wouldn’t be a good fit at all for the Big 12. I am just a bit surprised UH isn’t getting more consideration for Pac expansion. Hawaii already schedules a couple of Pac teams most years, both at home and on the road, although none this year.
Big 12 fans are a bit jaded since the Ohio State debacle in the first CFP. TCU had a better best win, their loss was much better, and they were way better against their common opponent (MN). Jeff Long and Tom Osborne rigged the system from the start.
