Should B1G go to 10 conference game schedule?

[BryceC]

Based on the future trends I believe it is doing ISU and Iowa a disfavor to play every year. ISU (also WV) is island of the Big 12. The majority of the teams they play are from Texas and Oklahoma (6 of 9 games). ISU really needs to look at re-establishing series with some old Big 12 members, Missouri and Colorado come to mind. They would get more regional or national exposure than playing Iowa. Eight of ISU's games involve on three states; Texas, Oklahoma, and Kansas. This year Iowa's conference opponents are from 6 states stretching from Maryland to Nebraska.

I agree with the beginning, I think we are to the point where Iowa State and Iowa are actually hurting themselves by playing each other. I think if Iowa State fans were honest with themselves they would have been a little concerned about selling tickets without Nebraska and Iowa on the schedule. We are there and at least for the time being it doesn't appear to be an issue.

However my conclusion is completely different. The last thing Iowa State should do is sched more power conference schools. They should sched a 1-aa and the two worst bcs teams they can find. Iowa State needs wins to sustain fan support. It gets a boost when beating Iowa but it also is diminished when losing to Iowa.

 

[tm3308]

An undefeated Ohio State will not be left out. How on earth is the PAC-12 a virtual lock? The SEC is the lock and most likely to get 2 if any conference does. Every other conference plus Notre Dame is battling for the remaining 2-3 spots. I see no clear cut advantage for one league over another after the SEC.

The selection committee will make the selections using SOS as a factor but also other factors and does not have to rely on one piece of data. The committee is comprised of interests from across the spectrum including Osbourne and Alvarez. Each member is responsible for compiling a list of 25 teams including a list of the top 6 using whatever means. There is a process for compiling the final list from each member list. You know all of this.

No matter how objective the process there is little chance this stays at 4 very long. There will be too many teams with a resume that did not get in representing power 5 conferences.

I do have a low opinion of SOS in football due to the sample size and lack of match ups. It is not reliable. Take one team from the B1G and ask yourself how they would fair against an equally ranked opponent from the other 4 power conferences? Is it even possible to schedule this? How many games will any power conference cross over to play during the regular season? Maybe 2 tops? This is what SOS is built upon.

You're kidding, right? Oregon, Stanford, UCLA, USC and Arizona State all won at least 10 games last year. Washington won 9 and Arizona won 8. They sent 9 teams to bowls and went 6-3. The B1G went 2-5 in bowls last year, with only MSU and OSU reaching double-digit wins. The SEC is the clear choice for the top conference, and the Pac-12 is an equally clear second-best.

 

[deanvogs]

You're kidding, right? Oregon, Stanford, UCLA, USC and Arizona State all won at least 10 games last year. Washington won 9 and Arizona won 8. They sent 9 teams to bowls and went 6-3. The B1G went 2-5 in bowls last year, with only MSU and OSU reaching double-digit wins. The SEC is the clear choice for the top conference, and the Pac-12 is an equally clear second-best.

And what good would that have done the Pac12 last year? The Pac12 would have been on the outside looking in on a playoff last year. It would have been Florida St., Alabama, Auburn, and Michigan St. in the playoff, with the Pac12 champ and the Big12 Champ on the outside looking in. ACC/SEC/B1G champs.

Sorry, but if your conference is tough, or the wrong team wins it, this will knock you conference right out of the playoffs. The Pac12 was tough last year, but no way a 2 loss Oregon or Stanford jump a 1 loss Bama.

 

[ThunderHawk]

We should only play conference teams.

 

[SpecialKHawk]

You're kidding, right? Oregon, Stanford, UCLA, USC and Arizona State all won at least 10 games last year. Washington won 9 and Arizona won 8. They sent 9 teams to bowls and went 6-3. The B1G went 2-5 in bowls last year, with only MSU and OSU reaching double-digit wins. The SEC is the clear choice for the top conference, and the Pac-12 is an equally clear second-best.

This is my problem with you. You have gone on and on about conference SOS which is the sole huge factor for not playing a 10 game conference schedule and making sure we keep the ISU game. We know it is based on cross power 5 conference match ups. Now your reasoning for the PAC-12 being a virtual lock for the placing teams in the playoffs is total wins, number of bowl representatives and then the bowl records. Disregard the fact that the bowl games take place after the playoff selections! Wow way to stay consistent on your lone argument.

No where did you sight any cross power 5 conference match ups like Nebraska vs UCLA as one example.

If you read the literature on the selection committee and playoffs they sight a few things that could be used for analysis but no where do you see number of bowl representatives.

Then you do not even break down the bowl records across power 5 conference match ups including the BCS rankings between those match ups to see if we have an apples-to-apples comparison. As you know sometimes you will get a highly ranked team from one conference against an unranked team from another because the match up is intriguing or the unranked team travels better to put some folks in the seats. It is not necessarily a fairly even matchup on paper.

Then you leave out the fact that 3 of the B1G bowl games were played against the undisputed NUMBER ONE conference the SEC and give no comparison of how many the PAC played against the SEC.

Then you leave out the match up of the PAC-12 champ vs B1G champ that we won head to head..... even though again that should not count because it happens after the selections are made! But it is humorous none the less based on your mountain of evidence that should predict playoff selections.

Now I do happen to think the PAC-12 is a very, very good conference but come on at least make a credible argument. In fact the only true playoff selection argument you make is total wins! Could that not be accomplished by playing a 10 game conference schedule?

Thanks again for playing along. We have some nice parting gifts for you.

 

[SpecialKHawk]

Too funny. I had to go back to review the PAC-12's bowl record of 6-3 to see the match-ups since TM is claiming they are the second best conference and a lock for the playoffs.

The PAC-12 faced a whopping ONE ranked team in their 9 bowl match-ups. The one would be MSU and they lost. The B1G faced FOUR in it's 7 match-ups.

Stanford lost to MSU (both ranked)
Oregon beat Texas (9 vs unranked)
UCLA beat V-Tech (16 vs unranked)
USC beat Fresno St (19 vs unranked)
ASU lost to Texas Tech (21 vs unranked)
Washington beat BYU (25 vs unranked)
Arizona beat BC (both unranked)
Oregon St beat Boise St (both unranked)
Washington St lost to Colorado St (both unranked)

This is hardly a group of victories against the best of 2013.

 

[tm3308]

This is my problem with you. You have gone on and on about conference SOS which is the sole huge factor for not playing a 10 game conference schedule and making sure we keep the ISU game. We know it is based on cross power 5 conference match ups. Now your reasoning for the PAC-12 being a virtual lock for the placing teams in the playoffs is total wins, number of bowl representatives and then the bowl records. Disregard the fact that the bowl games take place after the playoff selections! Wow way to stay consistent on your lone argument.

No where did you sight any cross power 5 conference match ups like Nebraska vs UCLA as one example.

If you read the literature on the selection committee and playoffs they sight a few things that could be used for analysis but no where do you see number of bowl representatives.

Then you do not even break down the bowl records across power 5 conference match ups including the BCS rankings between those match ups to see if we have an apples-to-apples comparison. As you know sometimes you will get a highly ranked team from one conference against an unranked team from another because the match up is intriguing or the unranked team travels better to put some folks in the seats. It is not necessarily a fairly even matchup on paper.

Then you leave out the fact that 3 of the B1G bowl games were played against the undisputed NUMBER ONE conference the SEC and give no comparison of how many the PAC played against the SEC.

Then you leave out the match up of the PAC-12 champ vs B1G champ that we won head to head..... even though again that should not count because it happens after the selections are made! But it is humorous none the less based on your mountain of evidence that should predict playoff selections.

Now I do happen to think the PAC-12 is a very, very good conference but come on at least make a credible argument. In fact the only true playoff selection argument you make is total wins! Could that not be accomplished by playing a 10 game conference schedule?

Thanks again for playing along. We have some nice parting gifts for you.

I have "gone on and on" about SOS for the BIG TEN. The Pac-12 is widely considered the second-best conference, as evidenced by 5/6 teams being ranked in the final poll before the bowls last year. They don't face the same uphill battle in perception that the B1G faces right now. You win 10 games in the Pac-12, and most people assume you're pretty damn good. You win 10 games in the Big Ten (like we might this year), and unless you're Ohio State or you beat Ohio State, people are going to question whether you're really all that good. Hell, even OSU had plenty of doubters when they were undefeated last year.

As for using bowl appearances/records, what do you suggest? That I use the number of playoff appearances when the playoff has yet to be implemented? All we have to work with, for now, is old information.

 

[thejumper5]

We should only play conference teams.

That would be an interesting way to go. Expand the schedule to 13 games and play a true round-robin.

 

[AreWeThereYet]

And what good would that have done the Pac12 last year? The Pac12 would have been on the outside looking in on a playoff last year. It would have been Florida St., Alabama, Auburn, and Michigan St. in the playoff, with the Pac12 champ and the Big12 Champ on the outside looking in. ACC/SEC/B1G champs.

Sorry, but if your conference is tough, or the wrong team wins it, this will knock you conference right out of the playoffs. The Pac12 was tough last year, but no way a 2 loss Oregon or Stanford jump a 1 loss Bama.

Coach Ferentz talked about this exact problem in one of his interviews when asked about going to ten conference games. It's hard to line up playoff games when there's no uniformity, some conferences playing ten games, nine games, or eight games. That is why I am for sticking with nine for now and see how things work out.

 

[ssckelley]

I would love to see a 10 conference game schedule, I would prefer to play 2 additional Big Ten opponents than any non conference opponents they schedule. Heck they could go to 12 for all I care, screw playing and sharing TV revenues with anyone outside the conference except for the post season.

 

[ssckelley]

Too funny. I had to go back to review the PAC-12's bowl record of 6-3 to see the match-ups since TM is claiming they are the second best conference and a lock for the playoffs.

The PAC-12 faced a whopping ONE ranked team in their 9 bowl match-ups. The one would be MSU and they lost. The B1G faced FOUR in it's 7 match-ups.

Stanford lost to MSU (both ranked)
Oregon beat Texas (9 vs unranked)
UCLA beat V-Tech (16 vs unranked)
USC beat Fresno St (19 vs unranked)
ASU lost to Texas Tech (21 vs unranked)
Washington beat BYU (25 vs unranked)
Arizona beat BC (both unranked)
Oregon St beat Boise St (both unranked)
Washington St lost to Colorado St (both unranked)

This is hardly a group of victories against the best of 2013.

^ Like

Take that Tork!!!!!

 

[SpecialKHawk]

I have "gone on and on" about SOS for the BIG TEN. The Pac-12 is widely considered the second-best conference, as evidenced by 5/6 teams being ranked in the final poll before the bowls last year. They don't face the same uphill battle in perception that the B1G faces right now. You win 10 games in the Pac-12, and most people assume you're pretty damn good. You win 10 games in the Big Ten (like we might this year), and unless you're Ohio State or you beat Ohio State, people are going to question whether you're really all that good. Hell, even OSU had plenty of doubters when they were undefeated last year.

As for using bowl appearances/records, what do you suggest? That I use the number of playoff appearances when the playoff has yet to be implemented? All we have to work with, for now, is old information.

You are underscoring the problem that has already been discussed with SOS as the be all end all especially in football where there is not enough sample size or uniformity in cross conference scheduling and match-ups. Also what can you use as a solid metric to compare teams from different leagues?

I can even agree with you that the PAC-12 is probably stronger than the B1G last year but what is the metric for this? I am doing this off memory but I recall 3 head-to-head match-ups between the 2 leagues but there may have been others. Wisky lost to ASU on the road in the game where they got hosed out of a game winning FG attempt. Nebraska lost at home to UCLA. Then the Rose Bowl. As a hypothetical example what would be anyone's analysis based on these three games which conference is stronger? That is the sample size for conference SOS between the two.

This is why going to an 8 team playoff is important and inevitable because it is just too difficult to accurately box 4. To me if you win a conference championship in any of the power 5 leagues that should mean something even if the league is perceived to be down. In an 8 team scenario the champion of each of the power 5 receive an auto bid which means they get a chance to do something on the field. This also leaves 3 spots to be awarded to the next best 3 from any league big or small or independent. This would also nullify the SOS which has lots of holes.

But we have what we have so expect a lot of discord. It is a step in the right direction but stopped short.

 

[deanvogs]

You are underscoring the problem that has already been discussed with SOS as the be all end all especially in football where there is not enough sample size or uniformity in cross conference scheduling and match-ups. Also what can you use as a solid metric to compare teams from different leagues?

I can even agree with you that the PAC-12 is probably stronger than the B1G last year but what is the metric for this? I am doing this off memory but I recall 3 head-to-head match-ups between the 2 leagues but there may have been others. Wisky lost to ASU on the road in the game where they got hosed out of a game winning FG attempt. Nebraska lost at home to UCLA. Then the Rose Bowl. As a hypothetical example what would be anyone's analysis based on these three games which conference is stronger? That is the sample size for conference SOS between the two.

This is why going to an 8 team playoff is important and inevitable because it is just too difficult to accurately box 4. To me if you win a conference championship in any of the power 5 leagues that should mean something even if the league is perceived to be down. In an 8 team scenario the champion of each of the power 5 receive an auto bid which means they get a chance to do something on the field. This also leaves 3 spots to be awarded to the next best 3 from any league big or small or independent. This would also nullify the SOS which has lots of holes.

But we have what we have so expect a lot of discord. It is a step in the right direction but stopped short.

Should have been 8 teams to start. P5 conference champion gets a spot, no matter if they have 3 losses or more. Then 3 at large teams. Winning your conference should be an automatic birth.

 

[tm3308]

You are underscoring the problem that has already been discussed with SOS as the be all end all especially in football where there is not enough sample size or uniformity in cross conference scheduling and match-ups. Also what can you use as a solid metric to compare teams from different leagues?

I can even agree with you that the PAC-12 is probably stronger than the B1G last year but what is the metric for this? I am doing this off memory but I recall 3 head-to-head match-ups between the 2 leagues but there may have been others. Wisky lost to ASU on the road in the game where they got hosed out of a game winning FG attempt. Nebraska lost at home to UCLA. Then the Rose Bowl. As a hypothetical example what would be anyone's analysis based on these three games which conference is stronger? That is the sample size for conference SOS between the two.

This is why going to an 8 team playoff is important and inevitable because it is just too difficult to accurately box 4. To me if you win a conference championship in any of the power 5 leagues that should mean something even if the league is perceived to be down. In an 8 team scenario the champion of each of the power 5 receive an auto bid which means they get a chance to do something on the field. This also leaves 3 spots to be awarded to the next best 3 from any league big or small or independent. This would also nullify the SOS which has lots of holes.

But we have what we have so expect a lot of discord. It is a step in the right direction but stopped short.

There isn't one, and that's the point. Even without much concrete data to support the assumption, the general consensus was that the Pac-12 was a much stronger league than the B1G (or any other conference outside of the SEC). Perception matters, because perception can create assumptions. And for the better part of a decade, the assumption has been that the B1G is below average. The conference can't realistically expect to change that assumption without getting out and beating good teams from outside the B1G. It can't just give a wink and a nod and say, "We're back," after only having the teams play each other. That's not going to convince anyone except for maybe the man in the mirror.

I will agree that this playoff should be at least 8 teams, though. All the P5 champs and 3 at-larges.

 

[Hawknick]

I am against this idea. I like having 3-4 non conference games. With only two it limits scheduling too much.

 

[HawkIMalaise]

We should only continue to play ISU if they agree to play every game at Kinnick. Their price gouging and crappy stadium should be enough for them to forfeit the rights to any more home games. Their program is on the level of a mid tier MAC team and as such, they should be expected to travel. I mean, they played AT Tulsa last year - that is not a team that can command a home and home with very many BCS level teams. I would then say the restriction on playing all games in Iowa City would be lifted when Iowa State wins its conference outright and the bowl game/playoff game immediately following the conclusion of the conference schedule.

As I was reading this thread I thought the same thing. The only thing we get playing at that modified hog pen is our lockers broken into. In all seriousness, we should refuse to play there or abandon the series.