ronnie mund
Well-known member
Rutgers may not win another game this decade.
Agreed. Adding them to the B10 was a terrible idea.
Divisional realignment needs to happen.
Rutgers may not win another game this decade.
I have zero confidence in Iowa and Ferentz. Every year they're either world beaters or a 7-5 team. With how Wisconsin looked yesterday, I think this is going to be a year where a 3-4 loss team wins the west.
Sent from my XT1254 using Tapatalk
Agreed. Adding them to the B10 was a terrible idea.
Divisional realignment needs to happen.
I was hoping against hope that Ferentz could get Iowa to make some noise when the league really needed it, but he couldn’t...as usual.
Agreed. Adding them to the B10 was a terrible idea.
Divisional realignment needs to happen.
How about eliminating down to 10 teams again, and having a 9 game conference schedule.
Why are you grouping Maryland with Rutgers? Maryland had done quite well in the Big Ten (against non power houses). Not to mention knocking off Texas the last two years. Here I thought you had merit on Yappi.:shrug: jk, LOL!Maryland and Rutgers, as individual football teams, add zero value to the Big Ten (negative value actually). BUT, I would be curious to see the recruiting numbers for other Big Ten schools and whether they have improved recruiting in those two areas (Jersey, New York, DC, Maryland). I’m inclined to believe that they have. The additional revenue the TV markets bring to the conference also helps indirectly as all of the schools end up with bigger football budgets for recruiting trips and paying coaches. I don’t know if you’ve noticed but the Big Ten has massively narrowed the gap in coaching talent over the past decade.
If you net it all out, I think the value is positive and probably better than adding Missouri would have been. (Though obviously not in the same ballpark as adding an A&M or Notre Dame)
No, because that's the complete opposite direction in which college football is headed.
Why are you grouping Maryland with Rutgers? Maryland had done quite well in the Big Ten (against non power houses). Not to mention knocking off Texas the last two years. Here I thought you had merit on Yappi.:shrug: jk, LOL!
Let's call it what it is...the two divisions, more teams in a conference was born to keep the conferences best teams from playing each other, setting up a conference championship game and making a ton of money. Has nothing to do with finding out who the best teams are.
My grand plan would be to split D1 college football into a grouping of 64 schools. 8, 8 team divisions based on regions. You win the division, you have a spot in the 8 team playoff. You can schedule 10 games, you play 7 division teams then you can schedule whomever you want, but they have to be within the 64 team pool.
I think this would eliminate alot of the subjective issues with deciding who can get into the playoff. Many, many more common opponents, no cupcakes.
A midwest region may look like this...
Ohio State, Michigan, Michigan State, Wisconsin, Notre Dame, Kentucky, Louisville and say...West Virgina.
Respective records by year, since joining the Big Ten, of the two teams mentioned:
Team 1:
8-5 (3-5 conference)
4-8 (1-7 conference)
2-10 (0-9 conference)
4-8 (3-6 conference)
Team 2:
7-6 (4-4 conference)
3-9 (1-7 conference)
6-7 (3-6 conference)
4-8 (2-7 conference)
Let's call it what it is...the two divisions, more teams in a conference was born to keep the conferences best teams from playing each other, setting up a conference championship game and making a ton of money. Has nothing to do with finding out who the best teams are.
My grand plan would be to split D1 college football into a grouping of 64 schools. 8, 8 team divisions based on regions. You win the division, you have a spot in the 8 team playoff. You can schedule 10 games, you play 7 division teams then you can schedule whomever you want, but they have to be within the 64 team pool.
I think this would eliminate alot of the subjective issues with deciding who can get into the playoff. Many, many more common opponents, no cupcakes.
A midwest region may look like this...
Ohio State, Michigan, Michigan State, Wisconsin, Notre Dame, Kentucky, Louisville and say...West Virgina.
Let's call it what it is...the two divisions, more teams in a conference was born to keep the conferences best teams from playing each other, setting up a conference championship game and making a ton of money. Has nothing to do with finding out who the best teams are.
My grand plan would be to split D1 college football into a grouping of 64 schools. 8, 8 team divisions based on regions. You win the division, you have a spot in the 8 team playoff. You can schedule 10 games, you play 7 division teams then you can schedule whomever you want, but they have to be within the 64 team pool.
I think this would eliminate alot of the subjective issues with deciding who can get into the playoff. Many, many more common opponents, no cupcakes.
A midwest region may look like this...
Ohio State, Michigan, Michigan State, Wisconsin, Notre Dame, Kentucky, Louisville and say...West Virgina.
Sorry, EagleGuy! They were one of the last cut! Good market, good stadium, but just a bit lacking competitively!
Just for kicks, a Tier 2 schedule would be 13 games comprised of 7 divisional games, 3 intra-conference games, two Tier 2 games, and one Tier 3 game. Example:
Wake Forest
Duke [T1]
Virginia Tech [T1]
James Madison [T3]
Arkansas State [D]
East Carolina [D]
Air Force [IC]
BYE
Marshall [D]
Fresno State [IC]
Southern Miss. [D]
Tulane [D]
Rutgers [IC]
Vanderbilt [D]
USF [D]
Semi-Final
Championship
Awhile ago, I played around with the idea of a promotion/relegation system for college football as a way to improve the season while keeping the current FBS teams in the loop. I settled on a 3-tier system (called the College Football Series) in which teams could move between tiers based on performance (on-field and attendance) over a 4-year period. I based the tiers on competitiveness, market size, and stadium capacity:
I actually don't hate that idea. The only issue I see is that there would theoretically be a few loaded regions (Big Ten East + Notre Dame, SEC/ACC in the southeast, Big XII + SEC West centered around Texas), while a couple of regions are guaranteed to suck, such as a region that would probably have Penn State, Pitt, Rutgers, UConn, Boston College, Maryland, Virginia and Virginia Tech.
Sent from my XT1254 using Tapatalk