18, 20 or 24 teams?

Agree.
Have one protected rivalry out of division.
OSU - MI
ND - USC
IA - PSU
IL - NW

etc

I like the general feel of what people are saying.

I agree Michigan and OSU have to be together. One idea might be to have one rivalry out of division game. ND and USC plus Stanford should play each other. I don't see IA-PSU as being a rivalry game really. We could just play our division games and be happy. There are lots of possibilities that could work.
 
Add ND & Stanford for an even 20.
Four 5-team divisions
West - USC. uCLA W O Stanford
Midwest - IA NE MN WI IL
Mideast - MI NW IND ND PU
East - MD RU PSU OSU MSU

Play 4 Div opponents & 2 from each other Div (6)
2 non-conf cupcakes

Semi finals at home field of div winners seeded on overall record.
Finals TBD

Maintains regional rivalries.
Reduces travel.
That Midwest division would be the most dog shit division in all of sports. No way.
 
Add ND & Stanford for an even 20.
Four 5-team divisions
West - USC. uCLA W O Stanford
Midwest - IA NE MN WI IL
Mideast - MI NW IND ND PU
East - MD RU PSU OSU MSU

Play 4 Div opponents & 2 from each other Div (6)
2 non-conf cupcakes

Semi finals at home field of div winners seeded on overall record.
Finals TBD

Maintains regional rivalries.
Reduces travel.

That looks good (though the weakness of the MW would be an issue), but Scott Dochterman says any sort of a division structure is an absolute non-starter. They went away from divisions for a reason, and they don't want to go back.

I am not really sure how you make it work without divisions, but we will leave that for the AI to sort out.
 
Exactly. Which is still dog shit.
But it has one of the most winning and iconic football programs of all time in it????? You know, the community college school that the conference accepted despite not being AAU accredited and despite having built their dusty dynasty on woman beaters, steroids, criminals, sanctimonious future congressmen and having to beat one team every season to play in the Orange Bowl until they were forced into a real conference and then foolishly chose to join a real real conference where since joining they have been somewhere between irrelevant and a national joke for two decades. Ya know, that school.....
 
The divisions shouldn’t be geographical. The world has moved on from that and solved that problem.
 
There is no way the B1G is done expanding. But, I wouldn't be surprised if the conference continues to grab up AAU schools that control large TV markets. That list of schools is Virginia, North Carolina, Duke, Georgia Tech, Pitt, Miami, Florida, Texas, Texas A&M, Utah, Arizona St., Cal, and Stanford. I'm throwing Notre Dame on this list because they would be an AAU school if they wanted to be. It's hard to believe the SEC schools are going anywhere. The B1G also had their chance at the former Pac 12 schools and passed on them. So that leaves devouring the ACC and splitting them up. Personally the 6 schools that make the most sense to me are Notre Dame, North Carolina, Virginia, Miami, Georgia Tech and Duke. That gives you a great presence along the Atlantic coast and would bring the B1G up to 24 teams. At that point, you would have to believe the B1G is done with non-conference games and the conference would make up its own 8 team playoff and maybe send the champ to a bowl game somewhere.
 
But it has one of the most winning and iconic football programs of all time in it????? You know, the community college school that the conference accepted despite not being AAU accredited and despite having built their dusty dynasty on woman beaters, steroids, criminals, sanctimonious future congressmen and having to beat one team every season to play in the Orange Bowl until they were forced into a real conference and then foolishly chose to join a real real conference where since joining they have been somewhere between irrelevant and a national joke for two decades. Ya know, that school.....
Yahoo, North!
 
The divisions shouldn’t be geographical. The world has moved on from that and solved that problem.

I disagree. Geography drives the game. When I turn on an Iowa game in October I want to see combines working golden fields during cuts to commercials. I don't want to see the damned Hollywood sign or some junky on Skid Row strung out on fentanyl when we play in LA.
 
I disagree. Geography drives the game. When I turn on an Iowa game in October I want to see combines working golden fields during cuts to commercials. I don't want to see the damned Hollywood sign or some junky on Skid Row strung out on fentanyl when we play in LA.
+1
 
The divisions shouldn’t be geographical. The world has moved on from that and solved that problem.
I think divisions are a great idea for non-football and non-basketball sports where budgets are significantly smaller. But for those 2 sports, they're not needed.
 
The divisions shouldn’t be geographical. The world has moved on from that and solved that problem.
I personally would like to see the regional aspect survive. I think a high % of fans are interested in maintaining border rivalries and the ability to travel easily and economically to many games.
 
Last edited:
If you measure strength by all time Natties, the Midwest Division might look salty. I think Minny has 7, Illinois 4, Nebbie 4 or 5, Iowa somewhere between 1 and 3 (depending on who you ask). Maybe there is too much power in this division???? :) If needed a justification, dusty trophies is one approach!
 
Even though the maintenance of regional schedules and divisions has been attacked frequently and harshly on HN, that view is still questionable. Read some other views away from HN. It could be that frequent attacks are potentially stopping some logical ideas from being considered. Maybe a survey on rivalries and divisions would be interesting.
 
They're going to have to redo some of those conference commercials you see during football and basketball games. They will be obsolete soon.
 
As much as soccer enthusiasts are going to hate this, soccer ain't ever gunna catch on as a mainstream sport in the US, just ain't.

Soccer and hockey for that matter are horrible TV sports to view. Just not enough scoring for our ADD society. They are horrible sports for TV. We in this country like action, hitting, fast paced sports. Now I know in hockey they can zip around on their little skates pretty quick, but the scoring is not there.

I prob would be interested if they made some changes to increase scoring, like up to at least 8 goals a game. That might be watchable. Hell, we don't have the attention span for baseball anymore, how the hell are we going to get people interested in soccer or hockey, especially those who have never played the games or who can identify with the players. That is a whole other reason it will never catch on.

I probably never watched soccer in my entire life until my oldest kid started playing it. Now I'd much rather watch soccer than football. No commercials, every game done in under 2 hours, I think it's actually better for an ADD society. Unless you consider the fact that most people, even in stadiums, are looking at their phones in between plays during football games.
 
I disagree. Geography drives the game. When I turn on an Iowa game in October I want to see combines working golden fields during cuts to commercials. I don't want to see the damned Hollywood sign or some junky on Skid Row strung out on fentanyl when we play in LA.

Not to be a jerk, but most of those strung out fentanyl junkies are in the midwest. Way lower overdose rates in CA than in places like Ohio.
 
Not to be a jerk, but most of those strung out fentanyl junkies are in the midwest. Way lower overdose rates in CA than in places like Ohio.

True, but the fine people of Ohio have the common courtesy to go OD in a Wal Mart parking lot or a park somewhere, not in an open air drug market.
 

Latest posts

Top