hawkfan2679
Well-Known Member
Forgive me...I think I'm having a slow night. If we had the conference as it's currently constructed, how would all teams not play 10 games (with only 2 OOC games)?
What would you like to see happen to B10
- Thread starter frankswanson234
- Start date
Forgive me...I think I'm having a slow night. If we had the conference as it's currently constructed, how would all teams not play 10 games (with only 2 OOC games)?
Sedrick5Shaw
Well-Known Member
I'd be okay with dropping Northwestern but I'd prefer to ad a 12th team. No big preference for who. Pitt, Rutgers, ND, or Mizzou would all be okay with me. My question is about divisions within a conference. As in what is the point of them, are they required by the NCAA if a conference has at least 12 teams? They create obstacles to traditional rivalry games when the rivals are split into different divisions. This often leaves a conference with the problematic choice of splitting up one of its best rivalries (Oklahoma/Nebraska anyone?) or creating a division that is clearly weaker (see Big 12 North). It seems absurd for the winner of a division to play in a championship game if they have the third or fourth best record in a conference. Last year if they didn't have divisions Oklahoma probably would've gotten a rematch with Texas instead of blowing out Missouri. The only upside I can see about divisions is it reduces the number of rematches, but when two teams are clearly better than the rest of their conference I don't see that as a good thing. Am I missing something, is it required to have divisions?
ShadasRevenge
Well-Known Member
I'm not exactly sure how the math works out, I would think it might work out that way, but I think that would be the only way. If you went 3/9, it wouldn't work for everyone.
CardHawk43
Well-Known Member
1st Division
Michigan
Iowa
Wisconsin
Illinois
Minnesota
ND, Pitt, etc.
2nd Division
Ohio State
Penn State
Michigan State
Indiana
Purdue
Northwestern
Michigan
Iowa
Wisconsin
Illinois
Minnesota
ND, Pitt, etc.
2nd Division
Ohio State
Penn State
Michigan State
Indiana
Purdue
Northwestern
hawkfan2679
Well-Known Member
Gotcha...my ideal scenario (without adding/subtracting any teams) would be a 10 game round robin with 2 OOC games. It won't happen anytime soon though because schedules are made now several years in advance.
briankaldenberg
Well-Known Member
I don't like the idea of a conference championship game. It would ruin the Michigan vs. Ohio State game which is one of the greatest rivalries in all athletics.
ShadasRevenge
Well-Known Member
I don't know if anyone heard it, but Kirk on the Dan Patrick Show today, and when Dan asked him about the idea of the Big playing a championship game, Kirk submitted that he would like the idea of a round-robin better than adding a team (which would need to happen) and playing a championship game.
For that to happen, he suggested that the Big 10 just go 13 games a year, and play into the first week of December. The rationale was that a few years nobody could have imagined teams playing 12 games a year, and now it isn't a big deal, so what's one more game?
If you haven't heard it, check it out; it's a very good interview.
oregonhawkeye
Well-Known Member
I'd like the B10 to host a postseason game against the B12, SEC, or P10.
Jon, or someone, please tell me (my brain is addled) where the "new post" button is.
Thanks
Jon, or someone, please tell me (my brain is addled) where the "new post" button is.
Thanks
Michigan and Ohio State have to play in the same division. They're not going to not play the best rivalry in the sport every two years.
Thats one thing you have to consider. Certain rivalries will have to be kept in tact.
Wisconsin, Iowa, and Minnesota will remain in the same division.
Michigan, Michigan State, and Ohio State will stay together
Purdue and Indiana will stay together
Northwestern and Illinois will stay together.
ShadasRevenge
Well-Known Member
No it wouldn't, just add another game. Iowa played 13 games in 2002 and 2003, so it's not like it hasn't been done before.
3 home non-con games
5 home conference games
frankswanson234
Well-Known Member
those were bowl games to get to 13 so....
frankswanson234
Well-Known Member
they played a bowl game to get to 13, 11-2, 10-3
ShadasRevenge
Well-Known Member
So that mean they played 12 in the regular season then, when most everyone else was playing 11. Look, that's just what he said during the interview, and frankly, I think that's a much better idea than adding a 12th team and playing a conference championship game.
With a round-robin schedule, you would avoid the kind of BS argument that we had to deal with last year when OU jumped Texas to play in the B12 Championship game, despite Texas beating them during the season.
Either way it doesn't really matter - any decision to either add a team or add a game isn't likely to happen for years.
frankswanson234
Well-Known Member
Ok ok,
HandsyHobo
Well-Known Member
A Round Robin schedule would completely crush everyone's ability to schedule interesting non-conference match-ups... just ask any Pac-10 fan.
That said, I'd have no problem adding a 12th team, but there is no one to add. Notre Dame will NEVER EVER EVER join the Big Ten; there would be minimal gains and huge losses for them. There's no way. A Big 12 team like Missouri, Iowa State or Nebraska would be acceptable, but they'd never actually go through with it, for a list of reasons 1,000 long. Kentucky would never join for the same reasons. Pitt and Cincinnati would be okay choices, but the Big East would do everything in their power to legally attack the Big Ten for putting the killing blow into their conference.
Unfortunately, I don't think there's an alternative to our current situation. In terms of national exposure, though, I do wish the Big Ten had that 13th game to play before the post-season.
That said, I'd have no problem adding a 12th team, but there is no one to add. Notre Dame will NEVER EVER EVER join the Big Ten; there would be minimal gains and huge losses for them. There's no way. A Big 12 team like Missouri, Iowa State or Nebraska would be acceptable, but they'd never actually go through with it, for a list of reasons 1,000 long. Kentucky would never join for the same reasons. Pitt and Cincinnati would be okay choices, but the Big East would do everything in their power to legally attack the Big Ten for putting the killing blow into their conference.
Unfortunately, I don't think there's an alternative to our current situation. In terms of national exposure, though, I do wish the Big Ten had that 13th game to play before the post-season.
ColoradoHAWKEYE
Well-Known Member
It doesn't bode well for a conference champ game when you're like Iowa is this year, but any other year it would be great for the conference. Bring on a PITT or Cincin or Missou, but let's keep ISU, ND, and Nebraska out of the talks. Remember who we have to recruit against.
thejumper5
Well-Known Member
I don't agree that a round-robin schedule would eliminate a potential OU-Texas type problem. This could easily happen. For instance, if Iowa were to be 12-1 (9-1) with a loss to Ohio St, Ohio St were to be 12-1 (9-1) with a loss to Penn St, and Penn St were to be 12-1 (9-1) with a loss to Ohio St, it would be an identical situation. Last year Texas fans were complaining, but if Texas Tech fans could have complained if Texas was in the conference title game bc they beat Texas and ended up with the same record as UT and OU.
Here's an interesting idea: According to Google Maps, Mempis closer in distance to the farthest Big 10 city than Minneapolis is to State College (driving wise). Adding the Tigers would definitely enhance basketball and would add a TV market that would expose the Big 10 to Mississippi, Tennessee, and Arkansas, some of the most talent-rich recruit states in the United States (I've heard that Mississippi is just behind Louisiana for most NFL players per capita in the USA). It also wouldn't steal a team away from another AQ conference, which would probably be a difficult maneuver.
Here's an interesting idea: According to Google Maps, Mempis closer in distance to the farthest Big 10 city than Minneapolis is to State College (driving wise). Adding the Tigers would definitely enhance basketball and would add a TV market that would expose the Big 10 to Mississippi, Tennessee, and Arkansas, some of the most talent-rich recruit states in the United States (I've heard that Mississippi is just behind Louisiana for most NFL players per capita in the USA). It also wouldn't steal a team away from another AQ conference, which would probably be a difficult maneuver.
bws258
Well-Known Member
yes way ... not only that, but they MUST be in the same division ... unless we are talking about adding ND, then I'd do what the ACC did
Last edited:
thejumper5
Well-Known Member
Also, 2002 and 2003 were experimental years to see if a 12-game schedule would work out. 2004 and 2005 reverted back to the 11-game schedule, but starting in 2006, teams were allowed to have a 12-game schedule every year. Before that teams could play one of the "preseason classics" to get a 12th game (with the bowl games being game #13), but these games were removed after all teams moved to 12 games; however in 2002, teams were allowed to play 12 games after their "preseason classic" game, which is why Ohio State was 14-0 and Iowa State (the year they played Florida State in Kansas City and Seneca Wallace almost won it at the goal line) was 7-7 that year.
