Big Ten

cjb56

Active member
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
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.
 

Michael Bluth

Active member
Agreed. Adding them to the B10 was a terrible idea.

Divisional realignment needs to happen.
I don’t want them to realign though, because I want to play MSU, Penn State, and M*chigan every year. Those games should always be on Ohio State’s schedule.

Scott Frost needs to work miracles at Nebraska. It’s the only way to help the West
 

Michael Bluth

Active member
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.
We’re better off with Wisconsin winning that game. Iowa would have lost three others at some point
 

Michael Bluth

Active member
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)
 

nwwarrior09

Well-known member
The ultimate issue that the West has is limited recruiting territory. In their states and larger markets, there's either next to no talent or basketball reigns as king over football. There are are very few legit power 5 football players in Nebraska and Iowa, and basketball reigns supreme in Chicago, the Twin Cities, and Indianapolis. Greater Chicago is decent in terms of recruiting, but no where near good enough for Wisconsin, Northwestern and Illinois to load their rosters after Ohio State, Michigan and Notre Dame cherry pick the elite talent.

I think that the coaching is pretty solid with Frost, Chryst, Fitzgerald, Fleck and even Ferentz, but that doesn't solve how they find legit power 5 recruits nationally and convince them to go to non-premier destinations or football schools.

Sent from my XT1254 using Tapatalk
 

nwwarrior09

Well-known member
The Big Ten shouldn't realign IMO. They are better off loading up one division and hoping one team runs the table on the other side.

In the big picture, if they ever expand again one (or both) of Notre Dame, Oklahoma and/or somebody else will be added over there with Purdue sliding to the East. That's the only way this will ever balance out.

Sent from my XT1254 using Tapatalk
 

Sig Hansen

Active member
Former LaSalle and current Northwestern RB Jeremy Larkin is quitting football due to cervical stenosis diagnosis. That really sucks
 

El Indio

Active member
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)
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!
 

14Red

New member
No, because that's the complete opposite direction in which college football is headed.
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.
 

nwwarrior09

Well-known member
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
 

Michael Bluth

Active member
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!
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)
 

Auggie

Active member
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.
I posted this type of frame work on numerous threads in the past. The one thing you have to do is keep 4 of the 5 conference alignments due to tradition and make the conference title games the defacto 1st round so they keep that revenue stream to fund the fencing and rowing teams and keep the schools title IX compliant. I did talk to a sports marketing person that said the one thing NCAA football needs to do to leverage revenue is look into getting a non Power 5 team into the playoffs, along with gambling it is the oxygen of the Billion $ basketball tourney.
 

El Indio

Active member
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)
At least MD beat Texas.:blush:
But I do agree that Rutgers is just terrible.
 

Max Grumbleman

New member
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.
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:

 

Arrogate

Active member
In your scenario would there be a playoff based on division winners? If so would Tier 2 teams have a chance to compete for a National Championship or would they have to be in Tier 1?

How would scheduling work in this scenario? Would they be free to schedule who they want or would teams be forced to play those in their division/tier?

Obviously this is all fictional and likely to never happen but it would be cool if this forced teams to play against competitive teams instead of 4 OOC games against cupcakes and FCS schools
 

Max Grumbleman

New member
Each Tier would have its own playoff and champion.

Tier 1 wouldn't be permitted to schedule teams below Tier 2, and Tier 2 wouldn't be allowed to schedule FCS.

For Tier 1, I envisioned a 13-game schedule comprised of 7 divisional games, 2 inter-divisional games, 3 inter-conference games (one team each from the other conferences), and 1 Tier 2 game. For example:

Ohio State
Navy
Penn State
Ole Miss
Arizona State
Indiana
Wisconsin
Purdue
BYE
Kansas State
Northwestern
Notre Dame
Michigan State
Illinois
Michigan
Conference Final
Semi-Final
Championship

Conference Finals would be the first round of the playoff, and the semi-final would be reseeded by record. The season would be more or less the same length, but with a shorter gap between the regular and post-season.
 

Max Grumbleman

New member
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
 
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.
So you are obviously in favor of no more than one team from any conference right now.
 

EagleGuy

Active member
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
LOL Believe me, I understand. Wake was competitive when Jim Grobe was there until near the end of his tenure. I saw UCF in your earlier post (vs. Wake Forest) and, yes, that makes sense. FWIW, Appalachian would be a better Tier 3 team for Wake (long-time foe) while James Madison may be better for UNC. I get the idea, though. Interesting.

Now, had you left Duke out.....
 

Gh0st

Active member
Unfortunately, TV contracts will always get in the way of aligning or expanding the conferences the way the fans would like to see. It's the reason Maryland and Rutgers got in and the reason Texas and Oklahoma will get left put of the Big 10.
 

Sig Hansen

Active member
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:

This is great. Well done
 

14Red

New member
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

I"m not sure what team you follow, but I"m pretty sure there wouldn't be a region with big ten teams that's "loaded". There is what 10-12 teams in the league now and only 3-4 are legit nationwide, and there are a couple that are far away.

I do not envision any set up like that that would include Rutgers. I don't think Rutgers would win the MAC.
 

14Red

New member
Nice work guys, now you're thinking my way!! Let's not just let the powerhouse schools coast to the playoffs year after year.
 

nwwarrior09

Well-known member
Really bad sequence there at the end of the half, coming away with nothing inside the 10 yard line.

Indiana was surprisingly effective running the ball in the 1st half IMO.

Sent from my XT1254 using Tapatalk
 
.
Top