Merged - Big 12 Aftermath Thread

okeefe4prez

Well-Known Member
I don't see it. It's too dilutive. Iowa State does not give the conference any additional footprint and it doesn't give any ammunition for the conference to go to its media partners and say "we need more money for our TV deal because we brought this program into the conference." Expansion will be to the west.

The Pac 12 is ripe for the picking. Remember the meltdown Colorado had when Michigan State hired their coach and Colorado couldn't match his salary?
 

kicker22

Well-Known Member
I have been in favor for a decade of an upper and lower class Division 1 (or whatever it’s called now).

The super programs like OSU, Bama etc. can fight it out each year and the normal schools where it’s a fucking school first and not an excuse to have a football team can slow down the arms race and we can enjoy sports without the insanity.

A place like Iowa is never winning a Natty under the current system. I’d rather play in the BIG without OSU and have viable shots at the conference each year.

I'd love to see a relegation system similar to what is used in European soccer. Set things up by tier levels, let them battle it out and each season swap out the teams that finish in the bottom 3-4 spots with those that finish in the top 3-4 spots in the tier below.

It may not generate the revenue the way things do now, but I think it definitely balances the leagues out and makes the competition more fierce. I think it'd definitely improve the product as games would be more competitive and you'd see much less blowouts week to week.
 

kicker22

Well-Known Member
The only benefit I see is that rivalry games with them would mean something now. Bragging rights, while fun, have absolutely no relevance in the long run. When your actually battling for conference standings I see as meaning so much more. Not a fan at all of the idea, but if we have to play them I'd rather see them as conference foes rather than meaningless games (aside from bragging rights) on a non-conference schedule.
 

okeefe4prez

Well-Known Member
I'd love to see a relegation system similar to what is used in European soccer. Set things up by tier levels, let them battle it out and each season swap out the teams that finish in the bottom 3-4 spots with those that finish in the top 3-4 spots in the tier below.

It may not generate the revenue the way things do now, but I think it definitely balances the leagues out and makes the competition more fierce. I think it'd definitely improve the product as games would be more competitive and you'd see much less blowouts week to week.

This doesn't play in college sports. A team could get good because it has 7 great upperclassmen and then they could easily suck the next year. 2020 was a weird year, but look at the fall of LSU from 2019 to 2020 as an example. Add the transfer rules and I think it gets even worse because it is just one more thing to use to negatively recruit guys. "Oh, your team is gonna get relegated so you better transfer" and the next thing you know the shit league is basically in a perpetual state of "Detroit Lions/Cleveland Browns/NY Jets."

"Oh shucks, Iowa got relegated but at least we get to play K State and Kansas instead of Ohio State and Wisconsin." Screw that.
 

Luftgekuehlt67

Well-Known Member
I used to really believe I wanted to see ISU fail at everything. In particular, I wanted to see their football program (figuratively) burned to the ground. I thought I wanted to see the Big XII implode and ISU have to join the MWC where they would go 0-12 for 5 straight seasons before having to downgrade to FCS status.

For me, two things have happened since those days:

One, I got a bit older. Some would say I've gotten "softer", but I'd like to think maybe it's a bit more like "wiser".

Second, I moved out of state, which I think gave me the luxury of observing the rivalry from afar (I live in Colorado - I see quite a bit of both Iowa and ISU gear here but, as you would expect, the rivalry really isn't a "thing" here like it is back home. About the only Iowa-related interaction I get is on FB game days where you'll definitely get some "go Hawks!" and even some brief prediction/reaction chit chat with strangers around town.)

Long story longer, I've come to understand a big part of the fun of being an Iowa fan is wanting to beat ISU every year. If ISU was a non-scholarship FCS program, I promise that rivalry would lose its appeal quickly.

I grew up watching the Hayden 63-0 style beat downs and the game was just a yearly footnote. Once McCarney came along, then it became The Big Game. I thought I hated it, but I think I loved it.

Maybe there are people out there who genuinely need Iowa to never, ever lose to ISU to be happy. That sounds exhausting, but I'm sure they are out there. But, in terms of pure entertainment value, the best thing that could happen to most Iowa fans I think would be a healthy and competitive ISU.

It's hard to find a "healthier" conference than the Big Ten and I think ISU joining would ratchet up the fun factor on the rivalry to a whole new level.
 

ssckelley

Well-Known Member
Would a move like this be to keep other conferences out of the Big Ten footprint? Otherwise this doesn't make any sense.
 

Fryowa

Administrator
I would be fine with OK State and Kansas. Add both to the west and boot Purdue east.

1) It would severely lessen the chance of ISU joining the B1G

2) Kansas basketball added to our conference would be a unicorn deal.

3) OK State is a damn good football school and the Iowa’s biggest wrestling rival going back before most of us were born.

4) Both schools would add tv footprint.
 

Fryowa

Administrator
...I think it gets even worse because it is just one more thing to use to negatively recruit guys. "Oh, your team is gonna get relegated so you better transfer" and the next thing you know the shit league is basically in a perpetual state of "Detroit Lions/Cleveland Browns/NY Jets."
This.

Half your starters would transfer once it was apparent they were gonna get demoted.
 

kicker22

Well-Known Member
This doesn't play in college sports. A team could get good because it has 7 great upperclassmen and then they could easily suck the next year. 2020 was a weird year, but look at the fall of LSU from 2019 to 2020 as an example. Add the transfer rules and I think it gets even worse because it is just one more thing to use to negatively recruit guys. "Oh, your team is gonna get relegated so you better transfer" and the next thing you know the shit league is basically in a perpetual state of "Detroit Lions/Cleveland Browns/NY Jets."

"Oh shucks, Iowa got relegated but at least we get to play K State and Kansas instead of Ohio State and Wisconsin." Screw that.

Agree it doesn't work but something definitely needs to change. Bigger super conference sized conference are great, but not when you only see the Ohio State's of the Big Ten once every couple of years and continue to see the Nebraska bottom feeders on a yearly basis. In my opinion its not much different. At what point do conferences grow to the size where your right back to square one one playing a division made up of the conference you just left. I can very easily see the Big 12 imploding, the Big bringing on the bulk of the conference and then you have a Big Ten east and a Big Ten west made up primarily of the geographic split with one former conference in one division and the other in the other.

While expansion is great, I'm seeing OSU/PSU/Michigan being replaced by Maryland/Rutgers as crossover games and feeling the exact excitement that you referenced above with "getting to play K State and Kansas instead of OSU" I just don't see much of a difference.
 

Fryowa

Administrator
Merging the four existing threads into one; please don't start another thread on the B12 dumpster inferno so we can have it all in one place.
 

okeefe4prez

Well-Known Member
Agree it doesn't work but something definitely needs to change. Bigger super conference sized conference are great, but not when you only see the Ohio State's of the Big Ten once every couple of years and continue to see the Nebraska bottom feeders on a yearly basis. In my opinion its not much different. At what point do conferences grow to the size where your right back to square one one playing a division made up of the conference you just left. I can very easily see the Big 12 imploding, the Big bringing on the bulk of the conference and then you have a Big Ten east and a Big Ten west made up primarily of the geographic split with one former conference in one division and the other in the other.

While expansion is great, I'm seeing OSU/PSU/Michigan being replaced by Maryland/Rutgers as crossover games and feeling the exact excitement that you referenced above with "getting to play K State and Kansas instead of OSU" I just don't see much of a difference.

I mentioned a 16 team conference with 4 pods months ago and the SEC is supposedly going this way. The pods protect the rivalry games and close geographical matchups. Under a 16 team regime, the pod system would ensure you play everyone at least every other year under the proposed SEC iteration with a 9 game schedule. That is far superior to what the B1G has right now. The current Iowa odd year home schedule is a fucking joke.
 

HawkGold

Well-Known Member
The BIG is probably going to have to scramble. I would guess that whoever wins the BIG each year will be good enough to occasionally challenge the SEC in one in 4 years.

Winning rankings since 2000

Iowa 24
WI 18
Maryland 39
OK State 50
Purdue 51
MN 61
Rutgers 74
KU 76
NW 62
IL 96
ISU 80
IU 105


PSU 29
UM 22

Ariz/Stanford/Washington are 89-91

So the Big wouldn't be that weak. Only really missing a real strong program and two similar to Iowa.
 

Fryowa

Administrator
The BIG is probably going to have to scramble. I would guess that whoever wins the BIG each year will be good enough to occasionally challenge the SEC in one in 4 years.

Winning rankings since 2000

Iowa 24
WI 18
Maryland 39
OK State 50
Purdue 51
MN 61
Rutgers 74
KU 76
NW 62
IL 96
ISU 80
IU 105


PSU 29
UM 22

Ariz/Stanford/Washington are 89-91

So the Big wouldn't be that weak. Only really missing a real strong program and two similar to Iowa.
Those numbers are only 2000-2009. When you include the 2010s and 20s the chart looks vastly different.
 

tweeterhawk

Well-Known Member
I've always wanted the B1G to add Pitt. Seems a very comparable school and competitive athletics. Would PSU object?
 

Hawkfnntn

Well-Known Member
How many schools would the league plan on expanding to? I think that question should need to be answered first. I mean are they looking to go crazy and add 6 more? Or just a couple or something inbetween. If it's like 6 or more then yeah maybe ISU and that level of program would inevitably have to be on the table due to geography more then anything. But they sure as hell aren't on any ones top 5 lists...
 
Top