http://www.thechaosindex.com/cest-l...-to-change-a-whole-lot-more-than-you-realize/
Not sure this would ever happen, but it was an interesting read.
Not sure this would ever happen, but it was an interesting read.
Interesting View to Future Playoffs....and Conference Re-Alignment
- Thread starter Monday QB
- Start date
If that's the case I propose this be done while it still can be done:
Add OK, KA & IaSt to the west. Then add ND, CT & MA to the east.
That gives us four big dogs in each division (with ND being one "in name only" while Kelly's still there
), and six would-like-to-be's in each division.
Common Sense..., which means it will probably never happen...
Add OK, KA & IaSt to the west. Then add ND, CT & MA to the east.
That gives us four big dogs in each division (with ND being one "in name only" while Kelly's still there
), and six would-like-to-be's in each division.Common Sense..., which means it will probably never happen...
Last edited:
So that would mean 18 B10 teams? Geesh Id rather see us go the other way back to 10...but Im old fashioned. No insult intended here but why not add 2 more and make it an even 20?If that's the case I propose this be done while it still can be done:
Add OK, KA & IaSt to the west. Then add ND, CT & MA to the east.
That gives us four big dogs in each division (with ND being one "in name only" while Kelly's still there
Common Sense..., which means it will probably never happen...
The Point being...that a point in every direction is no point at all. We would have no identity as a conference imo. Were slipping now. The B10 was a mid-eastern conference...now it seems we want to be national.
Heck why dont the B10 and SEC just merge? That way wed both always be sure of having the NC in conference. This age of expansion is only about money...not good football. Enough already...
Hmmm.... 20 teams..... How about 10 teams in the midwest division and another 10 teams in the west division.... and then the winners of the two divisions could play in a championship game called The Rose Bowl..... but that would never work.
Actually I meant to go with 10 & 10.
You could add Temple and Syracuse to the east and shift ND & M$U to the west.
That would make ND's entry an easier sell since in their hubris they'd think that they would automatically be the top team in the west (and the "old" ND would have been, but they are a shadow of what they once were and as as long as they keep Kelly that's what they'll remain).
You could add Temple and Syracuse to the east and shift ND & M$U to the west.
That would make ND's entry an easier sell since in their hubris they'd think that they would automatically be the top team in the west (and the "old" ND would have been, but they are a shadow of what they once were and as as long as they keep Kelly that's what they'll remain).
We could drop purdue and add either WV or MO but those two are tough gets and no one is going to want to drop a sure W no matter how obnoxious their fans are.
and add either WV or MO but those two are tough gets and no one is going to want to drop a sure W no matter how obnoxious their fans are.
Last edited:
Like you said, It's all about money....I've about had it with all the bowl games too. (Not that I'm not glad we're in one)
There are so many bad games in these bowls so far, they are very uninteresting for the most part for a fan. I'm a huge college fan vs. watching the pros, but some of these bowl games....I could care less. There are now so many bowls, that they become just another gameand not a very good one at that. Look at WKU vs. Memphis, or BYU vs. Wyoming and Colo St vs Idaho, if you aren't a fan of those teams, are you really going to devote 3.5 hours of your time to them? I tend to watch 'em all and I am struggling with this one.
I love the idea of relugation. The relugation games in the Premier League are better then the Championship. If you want to see players really lay it on the line, threaten to take away their elite status and paydays.
The concept is so simple...but the anti-universe of television turns common sense into an anecdote. It seems every major money sport misses the point that the more of something that exists does not increase its value...it cheapens it. As the number of bowls rose, conversely the quality dropped. Take pro baseball...what is the value of one game, win or lose? Do the math, as Sheldon would say...vbg. Pro BB is now following that same path.
Where is the point of diminishing return with all the bowls? I believe we crossed it...if your talking about quality and attendence and interest. But thats not tender in the anti-universe of TV....only advertising money...its singleminded obsession...to which we are captive.
Oh well...one thing is certain; they will pay no mind to the ramblings of an aging fan...vbg.
I don't think relegation works in a system where the players have essentially a 4 year career. Quality players would likely be less willing to go to lower profile schools since they know they only have a short window.
Good point. It won't happen, how do you work in Conference Affiliation with other sports? Does the B10 and MAC get into revenue sharing? If Purdue gets relegated to the MAC and Western Michigan comes up to the B10 how does the money work? How does it impact other sports? I love the idea, but I can't see it happening.
The good news is at least now we don't have to wade through a month of crappy games like Towson St, North Texas, Indiana State etc for what was a slim chance of playing a meaningless bowl game.
The bad news is that our Big Ten East schedule just got even tougher.
//This isn't aimed at you "82"//
I don't ever want to read anyone's post about how we "don't play anyone" again. Anyone who types that is just making themselves look foolish.
We are opening with a team in 2017 who could very well be defending national champs. ("the" O$U)
This past season "at the time we played them" we competed against 4, count em, 4 top ten teams (MSU, NE, O$U, & MI). That's a tough schedule in my way of thinking.
I've lost track of the number of bowl teams we played but I'm pretty sure it was at least half the schedule.
I Never want read that "we don't play anyone" nonsense again. Those that aren't going to show up and support them need to just say anything else but that as an excuse!!!
//This isn't aimed at you "82"//
I don't ever want to read anyone's post about how we "don't play anyone" again. Anyone who types that is just making themselves look foolish.
We are opening with a team in 2017 who could very well be defending national champs. ("the" O$U)
This past season "at the time we played them" we competed against 4, count em, 4 top ten teams (MSU, NE, O$U, & MI). That's a tough schedule in my way of thinking.
I've lost track of the number of bowl teams we played but I'm pretty sure it was at least half the schedule.
I Never want read that "we don't play anyone" nonsense again. Those that aren't going to show up and support them need to just say anything else but that as an excuse!!!
The whole basis of the article was that money will dictate future football, not other criteria.
Now, if you are saying that the Federal money for research dwarfs the football money, so academics will still drive financial decisions. I agree with you, the tv money for sports is a drop in the bucket to what a B10 University receives in research, business incupator, and other grant money. To put it in perspective.
Michigan receives $89 million in athletic revenue.
Michigan recieves $820 million in Federal R&D
I think the new schedule is great. Win or lose a hard fought game against Ohio State will do a helluva lot more for recruiting than a last minute victory of Southern Illinois.
The bag the B10 draws from must meet basic, non-atheletic criteria first and foremost...period.
But that leaves a big pile of schools across the country to cherry pick for sports. The issues remain the same regardless.
When the big TV money talks all other criteria will go by the wayside.
Federal funding isn't linked to who someone plays in football or what league they're affiliated with.
While it would be much preferred to bring in teams that have the same academic standards, in my opinion, TV markets and geography will trump those standards in the future.
Federal funding isn't linked to who someone plays in football or what league they're affiliated with.
While it would be much preferred to bring in teams that have the same academic standards, in my opinion, TV markets and geography will trump those standards in the future.
Correct, no seems to have heard of the Big Ten Academic Alliance (formerly the CIC, Committee on Institutional Cooperation). Delaney may be driving the bus on a lot of the conference expansion, but his passengers are University Presidents, and they don't want to be seen in public with academic lightweights.
I believe the original CIC was the brainchild of our own Herman Wells.
***********
The BTAA's collaborative efforts span the academic enterprise of its members, including:
- cooperative purchasing and licensing[14]
- course sharing[15]
- professional development programs[16]
- library resources[17]
- information technology[18]
- study abroad and international collaborations[19]
- faculty networking[20]
- participant in Google Books Library Project[21]
Thank you...most people just like to spout without facts, just react emotionally saying whatever pops into their head. The real world is far more complex and bound.
Facts! Facts!
You never layed a glove on me.
While I completely understand and was already aware (somewhat, I was thinking of another association acronym) of that which you speak, I still be believe TV $ will ultimately drive and dictate the who and where of division expansion and not academics.
Just my opinion and I'm sticking to it and..., getting a little emotional about it too!!!!!
You never layed a glove on me.
While I completely understand and was already aware (somewhat, I was thinking of another association acronym) of that which you speak, I still be believe TV $ will ultimately drive and dictate the who and where of division expansion and not academics.
Just my opinion and I'm sticking to it and..., getting a little emotional about it too!!!!!
Facts! Facts!
You never layed a glove on me.
While I completely understand and was already aware (somewhat, I was thinking of another association acronym) of that which you speak, I still be believe TV $ will ultimately drive and dictate the who and where of division expansion and not academics.
Just my opinion and I'm sticking to it and..., getting a little emotional about it too!!!!!
You're probably thinking of the AAU (no, not the hoops program that's ruining high school basketball), American Association of Universities. Nebraska was a member at the time of the invite into the Big Ten, but was hosed shortly thereafter.
***************
Chancellor Harvey Perlman claimed that the lack of an on-campus medical school (the Medical Center is a separate campus of the University of Nebraska system) and the AAU's disregarding of USDA-funded agricultural research in its metrics hurt the university's performance in the association's internal ranking system
LOL...hey, Im not saying youre wrong at all. Im just saying the pool is smaller than many realize.Facts! Facts!
You never layed a glove on me.
While I completely understand and was already aware (somewhat, I was thinking of another association acronym) of that which you speak, I still be believe TV $ will ultimately drive and dictate the who and where of division expansion and not academics.
Just my opinion and I'm sticking to it and..., getting a little emotional about it too!!!!!
But within that pool theres plenty of room for TV and $$$ to make the rest of the decisions. Its so bloody twisted...and greedy...I think Im gonna cry!
That is interesting. Why should USDA funded research not count? AAU being academic snobs on that one. I know UW is a big USDA research school, but they are big in research on everything.
you can't expand a conference from 10 to 14, 16, 18, 20, schools, and still have it be the same conference, other than in name only.
i'm curious if Glass wants his legacy to be that he presided over the dismantling of the B10 conference.
we already rarely play Iowa, Minn, Ill, NW, Wisc, and even more rarely at home.
and with further expansion, IU could easily end up in the west, in an even bigger conf, which would mean we would very very rarely see OSU, Mich, MSU, in Btown anymore.
as for money, there is no inherent money gain in expansion itself.
no one will ever be able to prove adding NU, UMd, RU, brought so much as one extra cent to legacy B10 schools.
the only major revenue source which you can track per school is BTN, and i'm betting per school BTN revenues would show a net loss if new schools were receiving full shares already.
and what other target schools have anywhere close to RU's metrics, and i highly question if adding RU was a net gain or loss. (again, no one will or can ever know, one way or another).
the only possible money gain from expansion is from further monopolization, and the elimination of other big 5 conferences as content providers.
that's Delany's goal, to be able to bargain as a monopoly entity, (like the NFL), as much as possible.
all the money's in further monopolization, not expansion itself.
also remember, each legacy school loses big time in expansion as to self determination and influence, with the league office and commish commandeering all the power.
i'm curious if Glass wants his legacy to be that he presided over the dismantling of the B10 conference.
we already rarely play Iowa, Minn, Ill, NW, Wisc, and even more rarely at home.
and with further expansion, IU could easily end up in the west, in an even bigger conf, which would mean we would very very rarely see OSU, Mich, MSU, in Btown anymore.
as for money, there is no inherent money gain in expansion itself.
no one will ever be able to prove adding NU, UMd, RU, brought so much as one extra cent to legacy B10 schools.
the only major revenue source which you can track per school is BTN, and i'm betting per school BTN revenues would show a net loss if new schools were receiving full shares already.
and what other target schools have anywhere close to RU's metrics, and i highly question if adding RU was a net gain or loss. (again, no one will or can ever know, one way or another).
the only possible money gain from expansion is from further monopolization, and the elimination of other big 5 conferences as content providers.
that's Delany's goal, to be able to bargain as a monopoly entity, (like the NFL), as much as possible.
all the money's in further monopolization, not expansion itself.
also remember, each legacy school loses big time in expansion as to self determination and influence, with the league office and commish commandeering all the power.
The AAU is a larger consortium than the CIC. All the CIC members were also AAU members as well. Not sure if it's still the case, but the CIC consisted of the Big Ten plus the Univ. of Chicago.
U of C dropped its guest membership a few years ago. That wasn't something I'd heard about, just saw it on Wiki when checking before posting.
I think Delaney will look at Markets in the Atlantic Coast and Southeast where we get both the academic standards and the TV markets.
While I am not sure what institution it would be I would have to think that the Carolinas and Georgia would be naturals for the geographic portions.
