CardinalAndGold
Banned
You cannot teach idiots. Do not try.
Reason Super Conferences would be good
- Thread starter vegashawki
- Start date
You cannot teach idiots. Do not try.
Iowa would not have to play them often...but yeah, someone would.
Div 1: (pod) IA, NE, WI, MN
(pod) UM, ND, MSU, PD
Div 2: (pod) OSU, IL, IN, NW
(pod) PSU, Pitt, Rut, SY
as you can see, IA would have a pretty good set up and play all it's rivals and most of the original members on a regular basis.
PSU would be the ones play the majority of the newer members. It's not a perfect system but it's pretty darn good and would make football season ever better.
Another great thing about super conferences is ISU would probably get left out.
Div 1: (pod) IA, NE, WI, MN
(pod) UM, ND, MSU, PD
Div 2: (pod) OSU, IL, IN, NW
(pod) PSU, Pitt, Rut, SY
as you can see, IA would have a pretty good set up and play all it's rivals and most of the original members on a regular basis.
PSU would be the ones play the majority of the newer members. It's not a perfect system but it's pretty darn good and would make football season ever better.
Another great thing about super conferences is ISU would probably get left out.
DwayneTwill
Well-Known Member
vegashawki
Well-Known Member
^^^superb^^^
Tail wagging the dog. Lets change 100 years of tradition to jerry-rig a playoff...look, I get it that some leagues(Big 12?) have so little real tradition that they would sell their mother and their sister to create some kind of soul-less NFL style playoff...they cannot claim true tradition,so they want to replace it with a pure money grab,and buy tradition....does not work that way.
Me? I like our 116+year old league,with change occuring only every 40 years on average,adding MSU, PSU and Neb in that time frame... I will be up for another change by 2050. Screw this playoff nonsense....go with traditional bowls,and then have the two best survivors play in a title game,and let the controversy percolate...it is good for college football. Leading up to the Super Bowl last year,did anyone question the Giants regular season of 9-7 as detracting from their credentials for the big game? No. And the day after they won,did it come up? no. Does anyone think they were the best team? not really,not over 16 weeks. Didn't matter. So,why does it suddenly really matter for college? The screening process of having to make a BCS bowl,by winning your league or going 10-2 or better,and then winning a BCS game...that eliminates the nearly .500 teams like the Giants from consideration. Even if Iowa won the Legends at 6-6(5-3)...and made the Rose Bowl as Big Ten Championship Game winner, and won the Rose Bowl over and undefeated USC...they would not be one of the two picked for the title game in a plus one.
Doing the plus one,with a committee picking the best two teams emerging from the BCS will give us two teams that had very good to great regular seasons,protecting the integrity of the best regular season in sports, and still allow for a BIG GAME...which seems to be so important. 19 of 20 year,it would produce a very worthy title holder...why let the tail wag the dog for that one year?
Me? I like our 116+year old league,with change occuring only every 40 years on average,adding MSU, PSU and Neb in that time frame... I will be up for another change by 2050. Screw this playoff nonsense....go with traditional bowls,and then have the two best survivors play in a title game,and let the controversy percolate...it is good for college football. Leading up to the Super Bowl last year,did anyone question the Giants regular season of 9-7 as detracting from their credentials for the big game? No. And the day after they won,did it come up? no. Does anyone think they were the best team? not really,not over 16 weeks. Didn't matter. So,why does it suddenly really matter for college? The screening process of having to make a BCS bowl,by winning your league or going 10-2 or better,and then winning a BCS game...that eliminates the nearly .500 teams like the Giants from consideration. Even if Iowa won the Legends at 6-6(5-3)...and made the Rose Bowl as Big Ten Championship Game winner, and won the Rose Bowl over and undefeated USC...they would not be one of the two picked for the title game in a plus one.
Doing the plus one,with a committee picking the best two teams emerging from the BCS will give us two teams that had very good to great regular seasons,protecting the integrity of the best regular season in sports, and still allow for a BIG GAME...which seems to be so important. 19 of 20 year,it would produce a very worthy title holder...why let the tail wag the dog for that one year?
cmhawks99
Well-Known Member
CardinalAndGold
Banned
I'd say your comment about the Big 12 having no tradition is incorrect. The Big 8 was pretty packed with tradition. The new Big 12 is pretty tradition-less. That is what I'd agree with you on.
DwayneTwill
Well-Known Member
Those two things do not compute.
DwayneTwill
Well-Known Member
It wasn't light-years better, but I prefer the smaller conference.But really, PSU was a good addition. Nebraska too. Those are big name-brand football schools that fit well with the rest of the conference. The next four in line, if the BT has to expand, won't be so good. Notre Dame is the only one who's as big a name as most of the current BT schools.
HomerChampless
Well-Known Member
Wouldn't be good for teams in 'lowly' mid major conferences like Northern Iowa.
Teams like UNI will find it increasingly more difficult to be in championship tournaments because their power rating will be lower and no one will risk their power rating to play them. Vicious cycle.
This may force UNI to eventually join a superconference.
Teams like UNI will find it increasingly more difficult to be in championship tournaments because their power rating will be lower and no one will risk their power rating to play them. Vicious cycle.
This may force UNI to eventually join a superconference.
Last edited:
Just because we've done things for over a 100 years does not mean there is not a better alternative. Nebraska is loaded with traditon and they made a very bold move last year and likely for the better.
With 4 16 team superconfrences you can end the season with the 4 league champions playing in the semis. This means if you win your conference you have a chance at a national title. You don't have to be "perfect" and win every single game...you don't have to scheudle 4 "cupcakes" during the early part of the season. It's makes for a more enjoyable season without all the debate, politics....etc.
With 4 16 team superconfrences you can end the season with the 4 league champions playing in the semis. This means if you win your conference you have a chance at a national title. You don't have to be "perfect" and win every single game...you don't have to scheudle 4 "cupcakes" during the early part of the season. It's makes for a more enjoyable season without all the debate, politics....etc.
DwayneTwill
Well-Known Member
Nebraska had a long 15-year tradition in a crummy conference. They got out because the Big Ten was a better alternative. The Big Ten asked them because of their big-name football program. Finding four more teams worth adding isn't going to happen. Playing short-bus teams instead of traditional Big Ten teams sucks.
DwayneTwill
Well-Known Member
ND makes sense. Three more crap teams do not.
The guy on the ESPN Big Ten blog linked to an OSU site called ''Eleven Warriors'' which had a lengthy column examining the long range impact of the alliance struck last December between Delany and Larry Scott of the Pac 12. Basically, the Big Ten/Pac 12 alliance has created a mega-conference eventually,that could form their own playoff...ie. 4 divisions, two title games,then the winner in the Rose Bowl...which is how it would work now....then,maybe if the other leagues come on bended knee...the winner of the Rose Bowl could meet a team they select on their side for a mega title game. Big Ten and Pac 12 do not need the rest...they have over 50% of the tv's in their footprint,and the looming Pacific Rim market that will snap up BTN/PTN shared programming. As they indicate, the Big Ten is king of all conferences,and Delany wants to keep it that way. Check this factoid...the combined endowment of Michigan,NW, and Iowa exceeds the combined endowments of all schools in the ACC,Big 12,SEC and Big East! Good to be king.
DwayneTwill
Well-Known Member
The Big Ten and Pac 12 *do* need the rest. They're not going to strike out on their own and wait for the SEC and Big XII to come begging to play the Rose Bowl champ, regardless of what some OSU blog said.
SpecialKHawk
Well-Known Member
I agree with the previous poster and OSU blog. I have been listening to this playoff chatter with the rest of you all thinking why one earth does the B1G and Pac12 need to get involved with the SEC (and on their terms)? Are we really that stupid? The media types like ESPN are feeding this rush to get this done because it will favor the SEC and they are partners with the SEC. Who benefits logically - both of those parties!
As mentioned, the B1G and Pac-12 alliance covers at least 50% of the national TV sets and a ton of major markets in this country. The SEC despite having the Big 12 now as a dance partner still is regionalized. They need the B1G & Pac-12 on board to leach off our markets. Why give them this and for what gain? So we can watch a 3 team SEC and 1 Big 12 compete for a title? Wow - can't wait for that! That is why they do not want conference champions so they can stick in 2-3 of their teams year after year. Again why on earth should the B1G and Pac12 enter into an agreement with the SEC and Big 12 that utlimately will turn into the SEC invatational?
I'm in favor of sticking with our alliance with the Pac-12 and doing exactly what was described in the OSU blog. Let the SEC create some 'national title' game that involves themselves and an occasional Big 12 sacrificial lamb. We'll do our thing and overtime we'll see who wins out or if the next deal to unify is beneficial to us - my guess is it will be.
What I would do immediately though as the B1G/Pac-12 alliance is form new alliances with the Big-East and ACC further dilluting what is left for the SEC + Big 12. This would further increase market share of what this new total alliance develops for a playoff and bowl games. In addition these two conferences would relish the chance to be invited to the party. Then sit back and say to the SEC and Big 12 ---- go run along with your little title game.
Last edited:
CardinalAndGold
Banned
Big 12 and SEC football >>>>>>> Big 10 and PAC-12 football.
That's why we made the champions bowl. To compete with your rose bowl. Now we won't have to beg.
That's why we made the champions bowl. To compete with your rose bowl. Now we won't have to beg.
SpecialKHawk
Well-Known Member
I could care less. Go have your bowl game and celebrate your whippings. We'll enjoy our money and market share. If it's so great then why do you need the B1G and Pac-12?
CardinalAndGold
Banned
To make us look better. Duh.
