Iowa AD says floating scrapping divisions

Donate To GopherHole
If you don't want rematches, then the only way is to go to a 16-team conference.

Play your 7 divisional opponents. No cross-over games. for the other 5 games, play an ACC team and a Pac 12 team, and 3 traditional non-conf games (2 G5 and 1 BCS).

That guarantees that the Conf championship game will not be a rematch.

If you want to throw in a wrinkle, allow a cross-over 'rivalry' game, but it does not count for the divisional title.
 


short ornery norwegian said:
If you don't want rematches, then the only way is to go to a 16-team conference.

Play your 7 divisional opponents. No cross-over games. for the other 5 games, play an ACC team and a Pac 12 team, and 3 traditional non-conf games (2 G5 and 1 BCS).

That guarantees that the Conf championship game will not be a rematch.

If you want to throw in a wrinkle, allow a cross-over 'rivalry' game, but it does not count for the divisional title.
Click to expand...
That's called two completely separate conferences.

I would vote against that, with my non-existent vote.
 

There's enough "guaranteed match-ups" and "not match-ups" and "hopes for championship games" that something will happen the first very year that was unexpected...and it will need to be changed.
 



Great Plains Gopher said:
Keep the geographic divisions. Why is college football becoming the new home of dumb ideas?
Click to expand...
A solutions in search of a problem. And I’m not sure the solution solves either of the two problems:

1) not enough money…nobody has explained how it makes more money
2) not enough teams in playoff…nobody has explained how it helps having more teams in the playoff of 4 teams, 8 teams, or 12 teams

The problem is solved is that Penn state thinks it is hard to beat Ohio state. So if you move them far away from Ohio state they play less.
 

I don't think it's dumb to go to 8 Big Ten games + 2 Alliance games. I think that is a good idea, and will likely increase the value of our conference TV contracts.

The question is on scrapping the current divisions, which would not necessarily need to be done. They could just ditch the the 1 "locked in" crossover game we have now as the defacto 9th conf game, and work through the other division 2 at a time after the 6 division games.

Gophers "locked in" crossover game for the first six years that just ended was Maryland, and now we're switching to Mich State.
 

To add fuel to the momentum of scrapping the Divisions take a look at the current Recruiting rankings.

Sure this is just a snapshot and no guaranty of future results, but the bottom 5 are from the Big 10 West. Iowa #6, reigning Big West Champ, is rated above Maryland #7. Purdue is above Rutgers #9. Sure the Portal can offset some of this in general and specifically for the Gophers (#12)...but uff da.

247sports.com

2022 Big-Ten Football Team Rankings

In order to create the most comprehensive Team Recruiting Ranking without any notion of bias, 247Sports Team Recruiting Ranking is solely based on the 247Sports Composite Rating.
247sports.com 247sports.com

EDIT - I missed Rutgers at #9.
 

Some guy said:
A solutions in search of a problem. And I’m not sure the solution solves either of the two problems:

1) not enough money…nobody has explained how it makes more money
2) not enough teams in playoff…nobody has explained how it helps having more teams in the playoff of 4 teams, 8 teams, or 12 teams

The problem is solved is that Penn state thinks it is hard to beat Ohio state. So if you move them far away from Ohio state they play less.
Click to expand...

Answer to #1 is simple enough, if the TV/Broadcast partners will pay more then it makes more.

Answer to #2 is unknowable at this point, that's been pretty clear even starting with the original Athletic article in this post. Format TBD. It may not even be a question of more Big Ten Teams in the playoff, but to set up to ensure highest ranked/best team gets in and has a Bye and/or Home Field.
 



Ope3 said:
To add fuel to the momentum of scrapping the Divisions take a look at the current Recruiting rankings.

Sure this is just a snapshot and no guaranty of future results, but the bottom 5 are from the Big 10 West. Iowa #6, reigning Big West Champ, is rated above Maryland #7. Purdue is above Rutgers #9. Sure the Portal can offset some of this in general and specifically for the Gophers (#12)...but uff da.

247sports.com

2022 Big-Ten Football Team Rankings

In order to create the most comprehensive Team Recruiting Ranking without any notion of bias, 247Sports Team Recruiting Ranking is solely based on the 247Sports Composite Rating.
247sports.com 247sports.com

EDIT - I missed Rutgers at #9.
Click to expand...
It makes no sense to me why the Iowa AD would be the one to suggest a re-alignment. An argument could be made that Iowa has gained the most from the current set up.
 

GVLCGopherFan said:
It makes no sense to me why the Iowa AD would be the one to suggest a re-alignment. An argument could be made that Iowa has gained the most from the current set up.
Click to expand...
From the article the Iowa AD isn't necessarily the one that is proposing or promoting it. He is just the one on record that it is being discussed by the conference as a whole.

If there was no financial incentive, I am sure all 7 ADs/Presidents from the West would be firmly against it.
 

Ope3 said:
From the article the Iowa AD isn't necessarily the one that is proposing or promoting it. He is just the one on record that it is being discussed by the conference as a whole.

If there was no financial incentive, I am sure all 7 ADs/Presidents from the West would be firmly against it.
Click to expand...
I see. So I did what bothers me about others - I commented on a post without reading the article. I'd like to point out though that I was spot on about it not making sense for the Iowa AD to propose it.
 

Ope3 said:
Answer to #1 is simple enough, if the TV/Broadcast partners will pay more then it makes more.

Answer to #2 is unknowable at this point, that's been pretty clear even starting with the original Athletic article in this post. Format TBD. It may not even be a question of more Big Ten Teams in the playoff, but to set up to ensure highest ranked/best team gets in and has a Bye and/or Home Field.
Click to expand...

Right but the point is just saying "the TV/Broadcast will pay more" isn't an answer. It is a vague hypothetical. has there been any indication outside of reading the tea leaves that this is even close to a possibility? I just don't see that likely being the case. Any difference would be miniscule as the broadcast rights are worth a ton anyways.

Go back to 8 conference games and keep the divisions. How does it benefit any team in the West to basically take away any shot they have at the conference title game if they lose 1 or 2 games? This is all to prop up the East teams that can't beat Ohio State it basically tells the West to get bent.

NCAA Football has lost the script and it would seem some in the Big Ten have decided to go right off the cliff with them. They are so worried about making sure "The Best Team" wins that they forget why people love college sports or tournaments in general.
 



Dave H said:
Right but the point is just saying "the TV/Broadcast will pay more" isn't an answer. It is a vague hypothetical. has there been any indication outside of reading the tea leaves that this is even close to a possibility? I just don't see that likely being the case. Any difference would be miniscule as the broadcast rights are worth a ton anyways.

Go back to 8 conference games and keep the divisions. How does it benefit any team in the West to basically take away any shot they have at the conference title game if they lose 1 or 2 games? This is all to prop up the East teams that can't beat Ohio State it basically tells the West to get bent.

NCAA Football has lost the script and it would seem some in the Big Ten have decided to go right off the cliff with them. They are so worried about making sure "The Best Team" wins that they forget why people love college sports or tournaments in general.
Click to expand...
Agreed on #1 being hypothetical, that's specifically why I said if. The indication you are looking for is in the Athletic article. Contracts are up for renewal, thus the reason it is being explored.

Any 1 loss team would still have a pretty solid chance to reach the final 2, and even 2 losses it would still be reasonable, depending on tiebreakers most likely. Though, the 2021 Iowa team would have been denied by 1 loss Michigan and Ohio St.

How the schedule is set up in the first place would also have an impact.

Maybe the 2nd question about the future BCS format is the bigger factor, but that has not been decided yet.

Discussing scrapping the Divisions at this very moment would be like shopping for new tires. However, you don't even know if the tires are for a pickup, semitruck, race car, SUV, or family sedan.
 

Ope3 said:
Answer to #1 is simple enough, if the TV/Broadcast partners will pay more then it makes more.

Answer to #2 is unknowable at this point, that's been pretty clear even starting with the original Athletic article in this post. Format TBD. It may not even be a question of more Big Ten Teams in the playoff, but to set up to ensure highest ranked/best team gets in and has a Bye and/or Home Field.
Click to expand...
Yeah and there is no evidence to show #1
As to number 2, it does the opposite
 

Some guy said:
Yeah and there is no evidence to show #1
As to number 2, it does the opposite
Click to expand...
#1. Evidence? Not even sure what you are looking for, it's not like Fox, CBS, ESPN, Amazon et al, are saying they will pony up X amount of dollars for the current Division set up, and X amount more if the Big 10 changes to some other format.

#2. It's not possible to comment one way or the other.
How many teams are there?
Are there Automatic Bids? If so how many?
Do byes go only to Conference winners?
First and 2nd rounds on campus or off site?
Are there limits to how many teams from a Conference get in?
What is the criteria for At Large teams?
 
Last edited:

GVLCGopherFan said:
It makes no sense to me why the Iowa AD would be the one to suggest a re-alignment. An argument could be made that Iowa has gained the most from the current set up.
Click to expand...
As I pointed out in a previous post, adding the 2 Alliance games, affects Iowa because they play an annual game with Iowa State. If the B1G keeps the 9 game conference schedule, there schedule looks like:

9 B1G games
2 Alliance games
1 Iowa State game
———
12 games, which means they can’t schedule a cupcake or any other team.

Note: this also affects teams that have regular games with an out of conference opponent like Notre Dame

Dropping to 8 B1G conference games frees up a slot for all teams to play a random team.

However, dropping to 8 games with the current divisions means it will be much longer to play all teams in the other division. This is why pods, and frequent conference realignments have been proposed.
 

Eventually it will be 4 pods of 5 teams when the PAC12 dissolves into the B1G after they see how large our new contract is.
 

Ope3 said:
#1. Evidence? Not even sure what you are looking for, it's not like Fox, CBS, ESPN, Amazon et al, are saying they will pony up X amount of dollars for the current Division set up, and X amount more if the Big 10 changes to some other format.

#2. It's not possible to comment one way or the other.
How many teams are there?
Are there Automatic Bids? If so how many?
Do byes go only to Conference winners?
First and 2nd rounds on campus or off site?
Are there limits to how many teams from a Conference get in?
What is the criteria for At Large teams?
Click to expand...
Got it. So you agree there is no evidence other than speculation that no divisions does anything to help the conference
 

Some guy said:
Got it. So you agree there is no evidence other than speculation that no divisions does anything to help the conference
Click to expand...
I agree that it's speculation, as are most (all) topics about something in the future. I would think that's a given.

Seems reasonable that TV/Broadcast partners will pay more, but until deals are signed one way or the other, there is no "evidence."

What we know (ie evidence)
- Big 10 Broadcast deals end 2022
- East is 8-0 in Title Game
- There is an Alliance with the ACC & PAC 12 but even that impact is speculative, but seems to be driving the move from 9 to 8 conference games

How to best maximize short term revenue without hindering long term gain, yeah, everyone is just speculating.
 

Ope3 said:
I agree that it's speculation, as are most (all) topics about something in the future. I would think that's a given.

Seems reasonable that TV/Broadcast partners will pay more, but until deals are signed one way or the other, there is no "evidence."

What we know (ie evidence)
- Big 10 Broadcast deals end 2022
- East is 8-0 in Title Game
- There is an Alliance with the ACC & PAC 12 but even that impact is speculative, but seems to be driving the move from 9 to 8 conference games

How to best maximize short term revenue without hindering long term gain, yeah, everyone is just speculating.
Click to expand...
Of your 3 prices of evidence:
1) true
2) has nothing to do with TV contract
3) true
 


Ope3 said:
I disagree.
Click to expand...
I shouldn’t say nothing to do with TV contract.
But the big ten TV contract is 102-106 games per year depending on the season. That is 1/102-1/106th of the TV deal.
It is the largest importance of those games (maybe)…probably more like one of the top 5.

If the big ten title game alone is 10% of the revenue (it isn’t)
The big ten isn’t going to diminish 90% of their tv money model for a marginal increase in a very small piece of the pie.

expecially when Ohio state Michigan isn’t moving off the last weekend of the season. So they either aren’t playing in the big ten title game or they are repeating

a change in scheduling model likely means you aren’t getting all 3 of Michigan -PSU, Michigan-OSU, PSU-OSU every year….so that’s lost revenue (or if you are there is at least 3 losses between the 3 of them so two of them making the title game is diminished anyways.


you can say all day that the big ten title game could make more money. And it is possibly true depending on the matchup. It is also possibly not true. It is also something that would have ramifications on the importance of games outside the championship game that would impact ratings and money.
 

Some guy said:
I shouldn’t say nothing to do with TV contract.
But the big ten TV contract is 102-106 games per year depending on the season. That is 1/102-1/106th of the TV deal.
It is the largest importance of those games (maybe)…probably more like one of the top 5.

If the big ten title game alone is 10% of the revenue (it isn’t)
The big ten isn’t going to diminish 90% of their tv money model for a marginal increase in a very small piece of the pie.

expecially when Ohio state Michigan isn’t moving off the last weekend of the season. So they either aren’t playing in the big ten title game or they are repeating

a change in scheduling model likely means you aren’t getting all 3 of Michigan -PSU, Michigan-OSU, PSU-OSU every year….so that’s lost revenue (or if you are there is at least 3 losses between the 3 of them so two of them making the title game is diminished anyways.


you can say all day that the big ten title game could make more money. And it is possibly true depending on the matchup. It is also possibly not true. It is also something that would have ramifications on the importance of games outside the championship game that would impact ratings and money.
Click to expand...
There you go, it's at least something. Again, it's all about what the TV/Broadcast partners determine it's worth.

Also, saying Mich-OSU wouldn't move off the last weekend isn't necessarily correct. While I would say unlikely, everything has it's price.
 

Ope3 said:
There you go, it's at least something. Again, it's all about what the TV/Broadcast partners determine it's worth.

Also, saying Mich-OSU wouldn't move off the last weekend isn't necessarily correct. While I would say unlikely, everything has it's price.
Click to expand...
No kidding. Nobody has done anything to convince me that the deal would be worth more money. Why would it be?
 

WAGopher said:
As I pointed out in a previous post, adding the 2 Alliance games, affects Iowa because they play an annual game with Iowa State. If the B1G keeps the 9 game conference schedule, there schedule looks like:

9 B1G games
2 Alliance games
1 Iowa State game
———
12 games, which means they can’t schedule a cupcake or any other team.

Note: this also affects teams that have regular games with an out of conference opponent like Notre Dame

Dropping to 8 B1G conference games frees up a slot for all teams to play a random team.

However, dropping to 8 games with the current divisions means it will be much longer to play all teams in the other division. This is why pods, and frequent conference realignments have been proposed.
Click to expand...
I am wondering if the Alliance will make a few exceptions for teams that have locked-in games against in-state rivals in other conferences.

There are six such teams amongst the PAC 12, Big Ten, and ACC:
Utah (plays BYU every year, now going to the Big XII)
Iowa (plays Iowa St every year, Big XII)
Louisville (plays Kentucky every year SEC)
Clemson (plays South Carolina every year SEC)
Georgia Tech (Georgia SEC)
Florida State (Florida SEC)

So for those six teams, I would think perhaps that they might be allowed to "replace" one Alliance game with these games, making sure to balance home/home as best possible (so one Alliance home game when they travel to the rival, and vice versa)

That still leaves an even number of teams to match up for the remaining games.

40 total teams, with above six needing one game and remaining 36 needing two = 76 total Alliance games per year.
 

Gophers_4life said:
I am wondering if the Alliance will make a few exceptions for teams that have locked-in games against in-state rivals in other conferences.

There are six such teams amongst the PAC 12, Big Ten, and ACC:
Utah (plays BYU every year, now going to the Big XII)
Iowa (plays Iowa St every year, Big XII)
Louisville (plays Kentucky every year SEC)
Clemson (plays South Carolina every year SEC)
Georgia Tech (Georgia SEC)
Florida State (Florida SEC)

So for those six teams, I would think perhaps that they might be allowed to "replace" one Alliance game with these games, making sure to balance home/home as best possible (so one Alliance home game when they travel to the rival, and vice versa)

That still leaves an even number of teams to match up for the remaining games.

40 total teams, with above six needing one game and remaining 36 needing two = 76 total Alliance games per year.
Click to expand...
That sounds like a great solution for those teams.

I wonder how many B1G teams want the 8 game conference schedule, which without changes, means it will take much longer to play all conference teams.
 

WAGopher said:
That sounds like a great solution for those teams.

I wonder how many B1G teams want the 8 game conference schedule, which without changes, means it will take much longer to play all conference teams.
Click to expand...
Right, and therein would be the main "rub" of keeping the current setup.

It takes seven years to get the cross-division teams home/home (14 games total).


With the proposed divisionless set-up, it takes only four years to get through the 10 teams that aren't yearly as home/home.
 

Dave H said:
How does it benefit any team in the West to basically take away any shot they have at the conference title game if they lose 1 or 2 games? This is all to prop up the East teams that can't beat Ohio State it basically tells the West to get bent.
Click to expand...
Regardless of whatever claimed reasons are, this would be the functional outcome for every West team.

Wisc and Iowa have loved the results. Wisc had Ohio St and Penn St in the Leaders, Iowa had Mich, Mich St, and Nebraska was good at the time in the Legends.

NW doesn't get two champ games the last four seasons in the Legends. Purdue loses more games in Leaders. Bertie has no chance to build up the Illini in the Leaders.

Etc.
 


You must log in or register to reply here.



Top Bottom