Should the Big Ten Expand to Nine Conference Games?
by Jonathan Franz on Jul 27, 2009 5:17 PM CDT
in All
Email
Print
I've been traveling throughout the Inland Empire all day and haven't yet gotten to pour over the transcrips of each coaches' session at the 2009 Big Ten Football Media Days. Maybe it's my legal background, but I vastly prefer perusing the 4-5 page scripts over struggling through the television feed. It's faster, and more efficient, since you can weed out the sleeper questions. While you might not have the time (or the interest) in digesting all eleven installments (plus Commissioner Jim Delany's), I still highly recommend checking out your favorite coaches' interview. At the very least it's good bathroom reading material.
I'll have an abstract, and my reactions to the event up late tonight. In the meantime, I wanted to focus on a question that came up constantly throughout the afternoon. Should the Big Ten expand conference play to nine games? As The Chicago Tribune reports Commissioner Delany is "among the Big Ten fans who would rather see teams play stronger opponents than the likes of Delware State and Wofford," and is considering the prospects for a ninth conference game. Says Delany:
"...I cannot report that there is a clear majority (in favor). But there is a clear majority that has been willing to discuss it."
The Tribune is quick to weigh the pros and cons:
If the Big Ten expanded to a nine-game conference slate, a "beefier" schedule could be achieved. But, there would be a loss of revenue from playing just six home games, one Big Ten team would still play just eight league games (eleven isn't an even number); and a tougher schedule would undoubtedly make it harder for teams to reach six wins and qualify for a bowl game.
Are any of these potential deal-breakers?
My initial reaction is to say no. The loss of revenue from home intakes, and participation in bottom feeder bowls (with miniature purses) could be mitigated by a healthier national perception of the degree of difficulty of Big Ten schedules. Harder team schedules translate into higher team rankings, and an increase in seasons where two Big Ten teams appear in BCS bowls. The bonus for a double appearance? $3.5 million distributed evenly to all eleven teams.
As for the difficulty in qualifying for bowl games, Delany points out that it's not such a bad thing to stay hungry. As he put it, "...I'm starting to think that while 6-6 and going to bowl is good, in other cases it's really not a welcome development at all because when a schools has a great season, (its fans) might be bowl fatigued."
Right you are, Jim. There's nothing worse than having to sprint to your car through icy alleys in Detroit in December. It's exhausting.
That leaves us with one final loose end: what to do about the 8-game outlier?
What do you think?
9 comments
|
0 recs |
Do you like this story?
Comments
Dear God, no.
What happens if in the 2012 season, Michigan finishes 8-1in the conference and Penn State finishes 7-1 in the conference. The two didn’t meet during the regular season.
Should Michigan go to the Rose Bowl because of their half game lead in the standings? Should it be considered a tie (despite Michigan having to play one more Big Ten team while Penn State scheduled an extra MAC opponent) subject to the league’s tiebreaker scenario?
If the Big Ten wants to expand, do it. But don’t take a half measure that will make an acceptable situation into a bad one.
The Rivalry, Esq.
The quintessential Big Ten smoking room.
The more I think about it...
The “outlier” problem is insurmountable.
Change my hypothetical vote from “Yes, with reservation” to “No, we should focus on scheduling more BCS out of conference opponents instead and expansion to twelve teams.”
The Rivalry, Esq.
The quintessential Big Ten smoking room.
by Jonathan Franz on Jul 27, 2009 6:54 PM CDT up reply actions
No way. Having a team play less con games is a clear dealbreaker. Id also add if team will be able to deal with only 6 home games you might as weel just go to 10 con games and get it over with.
10 Big Ten
1 Big Six
1 MAC
That is what everone wants to see Id think.
"There are no next times when you're competing for big things." - Tom Izzo
Go Spartans
Agreed
I’d rather see the league move to a 10 game schedule than a 9 game schedule. And that will never happen.
The Rivalry, Esq.
The quintessential Big Ten smoking room.
by Bama Hawkeye on Jul 27, 2009 9:57 PM CDT up reply actions
If we get a 12th team, then yes, expand to 9 (five within division + four of the other six, one or two as permanent rivals). Otherwise, the only options are 8 or 10. Nine doesn’t work with 11 teams, as Bama Hawkeye pointed out (although there’s a worse scenario – what if 7-1 Penn State beat 8-1 Michigan?).
As a Pac-10 Fan
I’d have to say no. One of the things keeping USC out of the title game is having to play all of the conference, opponents, which is a lot easier to slip up against than a big out of conference game, or even just having a bunch of push-overs leading to an undefeated season. In the Pac-10, it is already a big enough deal to have your team be very good the year that USC has to come into your stadium, I can’t imagine how big of a deal it would be to not have to play Ohio State at all (or Michigan or Penn State or whomever the big dog might be that year,) and how much quibbling that could create. The best way to get into those bigger bowl games is 12 teams in the conference, and a conference championship game. That would let the voters forgive a loss (or 2) and vote a team into the BCS National Title Game
Or, more often
It provides an extra loss that boots a team out of the title game (see: Missouri ‘07, Tennessee ’01). And if it doesn’t do that, it will often knock the loser out of the BCS entirely (Missouri ’07 again, maybe Arkansas ’06, LSU ’05, VT ’05, Georgia ’03).
Sort of
In most of those cases, the reason why the conference title game loser would end up knocked out of the BCS entirely under the current system is that there was another highly-ranked team in the conference beyond the teams that played in the title game, and it was really the two team per conference limit that would keep them out (under the pre-2006 system, they also ran into there being only two at-large spots, and an ND team that was sometimes good enough to get one of them).
Look at would have happened in 2001, 2003, and 2005 under the current system; bold is certain; italics would defintiely be in the BCS, but placement is speculative, other at-large teams are pure speculation on my part (though often there were few choices). I’m trying to think like a money-grubbing bowl administrator here, but I’m not looking up historical selection order. 2001 Tennessee still stays home (because the Orange Bowl is going to take Florida if it can), and so does 2003 Georgia (because Tennessee is more highly ranked, so the Sugar takes them as the replacement for LSU) but Virginia Tech gets in (because they travel better than Miami or Auburn).
2001:
BCS Title: Miami vs. Oregon (the current BCS formula would have had the Ducks at #2, not Nebraska)
Rose: Nebraska v. Illinois
Sugar: LSU v. Stanford
Orange: Maryland v. Florida
Fiesta: Colorado v. Virginia Tech (this gets wonky, because the two team per conference rule meant no one was eligible in the top 14 for the last slot, so it gets expanded to the top 18; VT is the next highest-ranked eligible team; the other schools in the mix are BYU and Syracuse)
2003:
BCS Title: USC (the current BCS formula would have had the Trojans at #1, not Oklahoma) vs. LSU
Rose: Michigan vs. Oklahoma (autobid by being in the top 4)
Sugar: Tennessee vs. Miami (OH)
Orange: Forida State vs. Miami
Fiesta: Kansas State vs. Ohio State
2005:
BCS title: USC vs. Texas
Rose: Penn State vs. Notre Dame (autobid as top-8 ND)
Sugar: Georgia vs. West Virginia
Orange: Florida State vs. Ohio State (autobid by virtue of being in the top 4)
Fiesta: TCU (gets an autobid because they finished in the top 16, and ahead of ACC champ FSU) vs. Virginia Tech
Comments For This Post Are Closed
Secondary Sidebar
User Tools
FanPosts
Community blog posts and discussion.
Certain photos copyright © 2012 by Associated Press or Getty Images. Any commercial use or distribution without the express written consent of Associated Press and Getty Images is strictly prohibited.
