End the 9 game conference schedule

Donate To GopherHole
fmlizard said:
Saying anything 8 years from now is a given is bold.
Click to expand...

It's the reason why the Big XII did not expand a couple of years ago. There was no more money to be had in the short term, so the teams did not want to give up their current share any additional podunk schools. They decided to ride it out and let the chips fall where they may. Oklahoma and Texas are goners. Once they bail the Conference will fold or dramatically change (ie merge with Mountain West schools).
 

The additions of Nebraska, Maryland, and Rutgers combined with the moves from a single league to Legends/Leaders and then West/East with Indiana and Purdue in separate divisions with a guarantee they’ll play annually messed up the Big Ten schedule rotation. At least one visit by Indiana to Minnesota, if not two, got lost in the wash.
 

WAGopher said:
I hadn't heard that. Thank you for the info.
Click to expand...

Don't take it as gospel! Just what I recall reading elsewhere.


dpodoll68 said:
Assuming that every school attempts to stick with the 7 home - 5 away model, it doesn't make a difference. Non-conference Big Ten games are shown on those networks all the time - the only thing that's needed is that the Big Ten team is at home.
Click to expand...

Minnesota vs South Dakota has the same value to BTN as Minnesota vs Indiana (as an "extra" 10th conf game)?

Not true at all.


Ope3 said:
It's the reason why the Big XII did not expand a couple of years ago. There was no more money to be had in the short term, so the teams did not want to give up their current share any additional podunk schools. They decided to ride it out and let the chips fall where they may. Oklahoma and Texas are goners. Once they bail the Conference will fold or dramatically change (ie merge with Mountain West schools).
Click to expand...

Texas tried to force Houston on the conference last year, per the governor's decree. Oklahoma and other former Big 8 schools put their foot down, scared of losing more Texas high school players to yet another elevated former Southwestern Conf school (to go along with Texas Tech, Baylor, and TCU).
 


dpodoll68 said:
Ah, but that isn't what you said.
Click to expand...

"... means more games ..." unquestionably meant more conference games, in the context of the post. You're a troll to suggest otherwise -- good day!
 


MnplsGopher said:
Where do you best see Texas? I think they best fit in with the PAC, actually. But there are arguments for every which way you can dream of.

Also some notion that Baylor would not be included, due to the scandal. Also possible a school like Iowa St or Kansas St could be on the outside looking in. But then there's also state politics. Etc Etc Etc


Fun topic to discuss ... for the fun of it. Not exactly relevant to Minnesota though.
Click to expand...

It is a fun topic. And I think it will happen at least to some degree. Assuming the B12 disbands and all teams are placed in an existing P5 conference with no other teams switching conferences here is what I would guess:

Pac12 - Texas, Kansas State, Texas Tech, Baylor
Big 10 - Oklahoma, Kansas
SEC - Oklahoma State, TCU
ACC - Iowa State, West Virginia

Those are pure guesses. I could easily be talked into changing most of them. But I'm fairly confident Texas would go Pac12 if they had to pick one right now (and the Longhorns would be the pick of the litter), partially because I think the Pac12 needs them so badly that they would let them keep their own TV network whereas other conferences would fight them on that.

Anyone else have thoughts?
 

MnplsGopher said:
"... means more games ..." unquestionably meant more conference games, in the context of the post. You're a troll to suggest otherwise -- good day!
Click to expand...

Here is your exact quote:

"More conference games in the season means more games that can be shown on ESPN, ESPN2, ESPNU, FOX, FS1, BTN."

If you meant to say "more conference games in the season means more conference games...", then you should've said so. It isn't hard to say what you mean. Asking people to clearly articulate their thoughts isn't trolling, despite what you're attempting to say.
 

bizzle22 said:
It is a fun topic. And I think it will happen at least to some degree. Assuming the B12 disbands and all teams are placed in an existing P5 conference with no other teams switching conferences here is what I would guess:

Pac12 - Texas, Kansas State, Texas Tech, Baylor
Big 10 - Oklahoma, Kansas
SEC - Oklahoma State, TCU
ACC - Iowa State, West Virginia

Those are pure guesses. I could easily be talked into changing most of them. But I'm fairly confident Texas would go Pac12 if they had to pick one right now (and the Longhorns would be the pick of the litter), partially because I think the Pac12 needs them so badly that they would let them keep their own TV network whereas other conferences would fight them on that.

Anyone else have thoughts?
Click to expand...

Good points, and fair picks.

I'm not saying it would happen, but I'd rather have Kansas and Iowa St join the Big Ten West and see Oklahoma and OK St go to the SEC. KU and ISU are pretty decent academic schools, fit reasonably well culturally, both have history with Nebraska, Iowa St has the rivalry with Iowa, and both would bring solid bball and a commitment to build up football without coming in and crushing everyone in the West (like Oklahoma would).

That's my opinion.


I agree WV to the ACC. And would think PAC would simply take all four Texas teams. That then leaves K-State sadly as an outlier. They absolutely do not fit in the ACC geography wise. And the ACC would much prefer to have Notre Dame join fully as #16. I think they'd hold that spot for the Irish.

That would pretty much leave K-State no choice but to join Colorado State in the MW.

But then Kansas state politics might mess all that up. Or you could also see the PAC academic minded presidents refuse to accept Baylor.
 

dpodoll68 said:
then you should've said so.
Click to expand...

I did, clearly. You're choosing to argue this for no reason, no gain, no benefit to anyone ... just your own entertainment. I suggest you lay it down and move on.
 



MnplsGopher said:
I did, clearly. You're choosing to argue this for no reason, no gain, no benefit to anyone ... just your own entertainment. I suggest you lay it down and move on.
Click to expand...

No, you didn't. "More games" does not equal "more conference games." I'm not arguing with anyone, I'm telling you what you stated.
 


MnplsGopher said:
You're wrong. It's over
Click to expand...

I'm 100% not wrong. If you want to stop discussing it, fine by me, but I will keep correcting you if you continue incorrectly insisting that saying "games" means the same thing as saying "conference games".
 

dpodoll68 said:
I'm 100% not wrong. If you want to stop discussing it, fine by me, but I will keep correcting you if you continue incorrectly insisting that saying "games" means the same thing as saying "conference games".
Click to expand...

Wrong
 




WanderingGopher said:
I agree. I never liked the decision to go to 9 games. I like the nonconf games.

Also you didn’t mention the most outrageous point of all, which is that the Conf that still only plays 8 Conf games got 2 teams in the playoff, at the expense of the B1G and Pac12 who play 9.
Click to expand...

I was going to say that Some guy is speaking like a true SEC Commissioner:clap:
If he would have only proposed a November Non-Conference game vs MERCER, I think he'd have been next in line.

Nothing like playing Mercer as a de facto Bye Week during the time when B1G Teams are in the meat grinding portion of theirs.
 

At least no one in the pissing match mentioned the worst abbreviated spelling of "Minneapolis" I've ever witnessed.
 

Was in a focus group held by the U and BIG about 5 years ago concerning this subject and the over whelming sentiment was to end the cupcake schedules. Its about money too.
 

gopherjay said:
Was in a focus group held by the U and BIG about 5 years ago concerning this subject and the over whelming sentiment was to end the cupcake schedules. Its about money too.
Click to expand...

Yep definitely. More conference games is more Big Ten matchups for BTN.
 

gopherjay said:
Was in a focus group held by the U and BIG about 5 years ago concerning this subject and the over whelming sentiment was to end the cupcake schedules. Its about money too.
Click to expand...

I’d be curious to know the financial differences.
You lose 7 home games and thus TV rights to those games potentially.
You also can’t do 2 for 1s as easily and make payout games more likely.
I’m sure they ran the numbers and it came out better this way, but I bet overall it isn’t that different. Because if it were THAT much better financially there is no way the ACC and SEC wouldn’t do it as well.
 

Why do you lose 7 home games??

Even with 10 conference games, it works like this:
5 away Big Ten games
5 home Big Ten games
2 non-conf games, which you can then make as "buy" games with G5 teams or even one FCS team if that's what's needed.


That's still 7 home games, and actually works out better than the current schedule of 3 non-conf home games against lower teams and then 4 Big Ten home games.
 

MnplsGopher said:
Why do you lose 7 home games??

Even with 10 conference games, it works like this:
5 away Big Ten games
5 home Big Ten games
2 non-conf games, which you can then make as "buy" games with G5 teams or even one FCS team if that's what's needed.


That's still 7 home games, and actually works out better than the current schedule of 3 non-conf home games against lower teams and then 4 Big Ten home games.
Click to expand...
You probably lose 6-7 home games.

Rather than 13-14 home non conference games you get 7 home games and 7 road games.
Unless you think with an 8 game conference schedule at least 7 are going to schedule road non conference games
 

With a 10 game conference schedule, every non-conference game is a home game.

I guess, you have a notion that non-conference games have to include a return trip to the opponent's stadium? That is not correct. There is such a thing called a "buy game". That means you simply pay a lower team, say from the MAC, CUSA, Mountain West, etc., to play a single game in Minneapolis. And that's it.

Those would be used 100% of the time for the remaining 2 non-conf games, in the case of a 10 game conf schedule.


Now, those can't be used with other P5 conf teams. That is true. If we wanted to schedule an Oregon St type of game, it would be impossible.

But so what? Doesn't bother me a single bit if we never play another PAC, Big 12, SEC, or ACC team in the regular season. That's what bowl games are for.
 

bizzle22 said:
It is a fun topic. And I think it will happen at least to some degree. Assuming the B12 disbands and all teams are placed in an existing P5 conference with no other teams switching conferences here is what I would guess:

Pac12 - Texas, Kansas State, Texas Tech, Baylor
Big 10 - Oklahoma, Kansas
SEC - Oklahoma State, TCU
ACC - Iowa State, West Virginia

Those are pure guesses. I could easily be talked into changing most of them. But I'm fairly confident Texas would go Pac12 if they had to pick one right now (and the Longhorns would be the pick of the litter), partially because I think the Pac12 needs them so badly that they would let them keep their own TV network whereas other conferences would fight them on that.

Anyone else have thoughts?
Click to expand...

You're thinking like a fan, not like a university president.

It's highly, highly unlikely that the Pac-12 would be interested in Kansas State or Baylor. Likewise the ACC in Iowa State.

You also need to think of in-state politics. Oklahoma/Oklahoma State won't be split up. Neither will Kansas/Kansas State.
 

That’s reasonable to say, but who is going to take KU and K-State, then?

I can easily see the SEC taking both OU and OK St. And I can reasonably see Iowa twisting some arms to ISU in the Big Ten West.

Missouri and Kansas should be together, in my opinion. Would it be possible to broker a deal so that all four of ISU, KU, Missouri, and K-State end up in the Big Ten with Nebraska, Iowa, Minn, Wisc, and Ill?
 

MnplsGopher said:
Would it be possible to broker a deal so that all four of ISU, KU, Missouri, and K-State end up in the Big Ten with Nebraska, Iowa, Minn, Wisc, and Ill?
Click to expand...

MW-EE570_barf_20160202094941_ZH.jpg
 

The schedule seems like a negative this year, but I think overall, it helps the conference.
 

MnplsGopher said:
Missouri and Kansas should be together, in my opinion. Would it be possible to broker a deal so that all four of ISU, KU, Missouri, and K-State end up in the Big Ten with Nebraska, Iowa, Minn, Wisc, and Ill?
Click to expand...

That would mean 18 teams in the Big ten assuming the East had 9 teams as well. At that point, we'd rarely ever see teams in the other division, so whats the point? I think 16 is the highest they can go, 8 in each division. That would mean 2 cross over games, 7 in division games, 3 non-conference. However, if we did go to 4 16 team conferences, I wouldn't be surprised if the number of non-conference games dropped to 2. In that case, you could then see teams from the other division every 2-3 years or so. I think you either take both Oklahoma teams, or both Kansas teams into the west, and then bump Purdue into the east division. The cross divisional games could be done multiple ways depending on the criteria you wanted, but in theory you could see almost every team at home and away every 5 years (minus one because you would need 16 games to do that).
 

MnplsGopher said:
With a 10 game conference schedule, every non-conference game is a home game.

I guess, you have a notion that non-conference games have to include a return trip to the opponent's stadium? That is not correct. There is such a thing called a "buy game". That means you simply pay a lower team, say from the MAC, CUSA, Mountain West, etc., to play a single game in Minneapolis. And that's it.

Those would be used 100% of the time for the remaining 2 non-conf games, in the case of a 10 game conf schedule.


Now, those can't be used with other P5 conf teams. That is true. If we wanted to schedule an Oregon St type of game, it would be impossible.

But so what? Doesn't bother me a single bit if we never play another PAC, Big 12, SEC, or ACC team in the regular season. That's what bowl games are for.
Click to expand...

But games have already doubled in cost the last 10 and if every power 5 in the country started needing two per year the cost would go up even more.
 

swelna said:
That would mean 18 teams in the Big ten assuming the East had 9 teams as well. At that point, we'd rarely ever see teams in the other division, so whats the point? I think 16 is the highest they can go, 8 in each division. That would mean 2 cross over games, 7 in division games, 3 non-conference. However, if we did go to 4 16 team conferences, I wouldn't be surprised if the number of non-conference games dropped to 2. In that case, you could then see teams from the other division every 2-3 years or so. I think you either take both Oklahoma teams, or both Kansas teams into the west, and then bump Purdue into the east division. The cross divisional games could be done multiple ways depending on the criteria you wanted, but in theory you could see almost every team at home and away every 5 years (minus one because you would need 16 games to do that).
Click to expand...

In 16 or 18, I think it's a foregone conclusion that you have 10 conf games. That's a huge amount of conf game inventory to sell to TV networks. More $$$.

So even in 18, you'd still have eight games in the division and two games against the other division.

The point, when you get down to it, is essentially an agreement to share revenue from an umbrella TV deal among the 18 schools in the conference.


How are you going to take both Kansas and yet leave Iowa State in the cold? Kansas politics can force the K schools together, but Iowa politics can't force the Iowa schools together?


Some guy said:
But games have already doubled in cost the last 10 and if every power 5 in the country started needing two per year the cost would go up even more.
Click to expand...

It's a very fair point, but lot's of ways to go at it:

- make a long term agreement with the MAC to supply these essentially "preseason" games, at some fixed price per game. Could even throw in some neutral site games as well, say vs N Illinois in Soldier Field, vs Ball St in Indy, vs Michigan schools in Ford Field.

- you could open FCS teams up for one game, to hold prices down. If G5 asks too much, go to the FCS teams.

- worst comes to worst, you pull the plug and go 12 P5 games (6 home, 6 away). Yeah you lose the home game, but the schedule is higher level

- and a caveat to the last option above .... you could do that anyway, and then petition the NCAA to allow an actual equivalent to a preseason game, which would then be the 7th home game as a 13th game played in late Aug vs an FCS team, as an exhibition game.
 

MnplsGopher said:
In 16 or 18, I think it's a foregone conclusion that you have 10 conf games. That's a huge amount of conf game inventory to sell to TV networks. More $$$.

So even in 18, you'd still have eight games in the division and two games against the other division.

The point, when you get down to it, is essentially an agreement to share revenue from an umbrella TV deal among the 18 schools in the conference.


How are you going to take both Kansas and yet leave Iowa State in the cold? Kansas politics can force the K schools together, but Iowa politics can't force the Iowa schools together?
Click to expand...

I guess what I was trying to get at with an 18 team conference is the fact that with 2 crossovers, you'd see team once every 4-5 years. To me that just seems unreasonable, however, given that the conference is focused on money, I guess it could happen. I do think that if the Big 12 were to fold, the NCAA might push for 4 16 team conferences instead of having various sized conferences.

As far as Iowa state goes, I see your point. In that case, I think if the conference were to go to 16 teams, the only pairs I think are feasible are the OK and OKSt, Kansas and Kansas St, or Iowa St and another team (Mizzou? IDK if they would want to leave the SEC). My point was that you can't break up the Oklahoma schools or the Kansas schools, so if you take one, you take the pair. In the case that Iowa were to pull for Iowa state to join, I think we'd have to pull for a school that doesn't have an instate rival.
 

You must log in or register to reply here.



Top Bottom