This could be great, this could be terrible - Alignment
by bighitter5 on Oct 16, 2011 11:35 PM CDT
Email
PrintGentlemen (and ladies), I'll be honest. I haven't been around here in a long while. Haven't really been much of a poster when I was. But I recently posted something on a website about realignment that could be interesting. I stress that I haven't been here in a while because there are probably 10 gazillion other Fanposts on here about possible realignments. I don't know if this has been done, I don't know if there is a moratorium on realignment-related posts, and I don't know how well this will go down. But here goes nothing.
If the Big 12 collapses and sets off realignment frenzy, then I could see us taking the two Kansas schools, maybe Iowa State, and Notre Dame. Beyond that, I dont think there is anybody geographically feasible enough for us to take. We'd keep the Big Ten name because by then, we'd have ten states represented:
Indiana: IU, PU, ND
Michigan: UM and MSU
Iowa: Iowa and ISU
Illinois: ILL and NW
Kansas: KU and KSU
Penn: PSU
Ohio: OSU
Minnesota: Minn
Wisconsin: UW
Nebraska: Neb
The ONLY other school that could maybe make sense geographically would be Cincy.
This way, a four division format would be feasible; the scheduling could work similar to how the NFL schedules its season - 9 divison games, always play your division opponents (3 games), Play every team from another division (4 games), then play the teams that finished in the same place last year from the other two divisions. Big Ten championship would be the best teams from each divisional pairing, with the tiebreaker being head-to-head matchup, then possibly BCS ranking. It would encourage the rise and fall of teams, and would certainly make things more interesting as far as games go.
Geographically ideal divisions:
Northwest/ "Frigid North" division - NW, Minn, Wisc, Neb
Southwest/ "Newbies plus Iowa" division - KU, KSU, Iowa, ISU
Northeast/ "Gauntlet" division - Mich, MSU, PSU, OSU
Southeast/ "Wake us up when basketball starts" division - IU, ND, PU, ILL
Saved rivalries - Wisc/Minn, Wisc/Neb (this one could/should be growing), KU/KSU, Iowa/ISU, Mich/OSU, Mich/MSU, MSU/PSU, IU/PU, IU/ILL, PU/ND
Lost rivalries (that could still be played, just not as often) - ILL/NW, Mich/ND (who have considered going on a break anyway)
Obviously, these would not be perfect divisions, but I think something like this would be very beneficial for the Big Ten. The network reaches into a new (albeit small) market in Kansas, the member institutions have more of a Big Ten "feel", rather than what our other expansion targets like Rutgers or Syracuse might have been (Pitt would have been a great addition), and the Big Ten would be competing with the way college football and the divisional format is headed.
What does the OTE community think about this? Obviously Delaney isn't going to be reading this, but how well would this work out?
7 comments
|
0 recs |
Do you like this story?
Comments
If the Big 12 collapses and sets off realignment frenzy, then I could see us taking the two Kansas schools, maybe Iowa State
I don’t see this at all.
1. Expansion is driven by revenue, and none of these programs add a lot.
2. There is a reason everyone turned them down the last time they went looking when the B12 looked to lose its top 7 members.
3. The Big Ten already passed, the changes elsewhere won’t change the financials of these programs.
4. Both Kansas schools make even less financial sense than 1.
There is nothing of note to point to these programs being viable candidates, everything to say no.
The ONLY other school that could maybe make sense geographically would be Cincy.
Cincy adds less than the Kaunas’s.
Roughly, tOSU fan base + Cincy fan base = tOSU fan base
This way, a four division format would be feasible
A 4 division format would b feasible now.
the member institutions have more of a Big Ten “feel”, rather than what our other expansion targets like Rutgers or Syracuse
Iowa State, and definitely Kansas and Kansas State do not have a Big Ten feel.
rather than what our other expansion targets like Rutgers or Syracuse might have been (Pitt would have been a great addition),
It is a stretch to say these are Big Ten candidates. The most likely scenario is that these teams already inquired and were told now (unless you believe they ignored the last round of Big Ten expansion).
What does the OTE community think about this?
Outside the SEC (the difference in shared revenue isn’t enough to attract their programs… yet) maybe a few of the ACC schools, and the PAC (geography has its limits) the Big Ten did their research and passed on all but the following:
TA&M – went elsewhere
Texas – the ‘Horns network now complicates things
Notre Dame – no Big Ten expansion discussion is complete without mentioning them.
…and this isa generous offering believing the ACC wasn’t looked at closely or tunred down invites…
"Roughly, tOSU fan base + Cincy fan base = tOSU fan base"
Not exactly. Most of Cincinnati hates Ohio State. It’s more of a UK city than OSU.
That said, the point that Cincinnati adds very little is very accurate. Cincy might bring – at the most – 200,000 dedicated fans who would watch every game. In most years, Cincy vs. Any Big Ten opponent would be a Big Ten Newtork game. The B1G wants to add a team that would cause for an extra Tier 1 game on ABC. They also do not fit the profile academically.
by TheHumbleBuckeye on Oct 17, 2011 9:01 AM CDT up reply actions 1 recs
...and I hear you as well...
Solid point on Tier 1 games to push better games to the BTN – I hadn’t really factored that into looking at candidates such as Syracuse and Rutgers.
If we go to 16 teams, I believe the fairest way to schedule is like you said, 4, 4 team divisions. However, I believe they will do it differently ….
Again, a nine team conference schedule:
3 games in division and 2 games each from each of the other 3 divisions.
Example:
Teams A, B, C, D – Division 1; E, F, G, H – Division 2; I, J, K, L – Division 3; M, N, O, P – Division 4
Team A schedule over a four year period:
Year 1: @B, C, @D; @E. F; @I, J; @M, N
Year 2: B, @C, D; E, @F; I, @J; M, @N
Year 3: @B, C, @D; @G. H; @K, L; @O, P
Year 4: B, @C, D; G, @H; K, @L; O, @P
This way every school plays each other minimum twice every four years, including a road game in every venue, once every four years.
In a sub-divisional format...
…I always liked the idea of:
1. Rotate sub-divisions every year, rotating home and away on an 8 year schedule.
2. A preserved rivalry in every other division to fill out the 9 game schedule.
With no need to be concerned about preserving rivalries, divisions can be made on other criteria.
You preserve most marquee match ups to maximize broadcast revenue.
More preserved rivalries elevates the interest of some otherwise insignificant games.
Every team in the conference is in your division, was in your division last year, or will be in your division next year expanding interest.
Comments For This Post Are Closed
Secondary Sidebar
User Tools
FanPosts
Community blog posts and discussion.
