Big 12 - Expand or die.

[pandaczar12]

So why don't the 8 teams just make their own conference and then have more freedom on who those two games will be each year? You're probably going to answer something about money and you're probably right but from a fan POV it doesn't seem so great. It feels more like a loose affiliation than a conference.

A few reasons:
You can't have a conference championship game with 8 schools. You can in a 16 team league, this also essentially adds another round of the playoff. It makes scheduling easier, and you always get those marquee schools once every 4 years. In theory, all that will matter is winning your conference. So even if you lose every game OOC you can be national champ, so why not schedule marquee matchups?

 

[Op2]

A few reasons:
You can't have a conference championship game with 8 schools. You can in a 16 team league, this also essentially adds another round of the playoff. It makes scheduling easier, and you always get those marquee schools once every 4 years. In theory, all that will matter is winning your conference. So even if you lose every game OOC you can be national champ, so why not schedule marquee matchups?

That's another way of saying "money." Conference championship games are for the money. A conference championship game between the winner of two 7 or 8 team divisions isn't a good way (i.e., fan friendly way) to determine a conference champion. When you can only have at most 10 conference games there is no good way to determine a conference champion, which is another way huge conferences aren't fan friendly.

How about everybody play everybody else and the champion be determined from that? I like that much better but maybe I'm an old fashioned throwback in that regard.

 

[Option Bob]

The Big Ten Presidents are not going to bend over like the ACC is for a research lightweight like Notre Dame. Full membership with no special privileges????

Good point, because we all know the Big Ten is all about NOT allowing any member school to have any special privileges.

Just kidding, Buffalo Lion. I found your post very informative.

 

[pandaczar12]

That's another way of saying "money." Conference championship games are for the money. A conference championship game between the winner of two 7 or 8 team divisions isn't a good way (i.e., fan friendly way) to determine a conference champion. When you can only have at most 10 conference games there is no good way to determine a conference champion, which is another way huge conferences aren't fan friendly.

How about everybody play everybody else and the champion be determined from that? I like that much better but maybe I'm an old fashioned throwback in that regard.

If I meant "money", I would have typed it, I am capable of spelling that word, see I just did.

It adds a round to the playoff, it determines a true conference champion, it hopefully improves OOC scheduling. That is about as fan friendly as you get. Or we can revert to the system you want, where twice PSU beat Ohio State on the field and Ohio State was still co-champs because there was no title game... no thanks! Then who do you send to the CFB playoff? Answer.. no one! Ask the Big 12. I want my alma mater to have access to the playoff.

 

[Op2]

If I meant "money", I would have typed it, I am capable of spelling that word, see I just did.

It adds a round to the playoff, it determines a true conference champion, it hopefully improves OOC scheduling. That is about as fan friendly as you get. Or we can revert to the system you want, where twice PSU beat Ohio State on the field and Ohio State was still co-champs because there was no title game... no thanks! Then who do you send to the CFB playoff? Answer.. no one! Ask the Big 12. I want my alma mater to have access to the playoff.

How exactly does a conference championship game determine a true conference champion? It doesn't. For starters it doesn't even guarantee the two best teams in the conference will play in the conference championship game. And secondly, even if it did, how would having the two top teams in the conference play a game after the regular season determine a true conference champion? The conference champion is the team that performed best DURING the regular season.

 

[JoeBatters1]

Thanks BL! I had read about the whole 1990 Texas/Big Ten discussions prior. I would recommend the book by Kirk Bohls/John Maher, “Bleeding Orange: Trouble and Triumph deep in the Heart of Texas Football” which discusses that whole situation. Also, someone mentioned in this thread the possibility of Texas going to the SEC – I don't see it happening. In the book by Bohls/Maher they clearly outline how the Texas administration feels that the SEC is a joke academically and they do not want to be associated with them. Things can always change, but the perceptions of the SEC regarding academics has not in my opinion.
Also, you touched upon the history of the flirtations between ND and the Big Ten and I would also recommend the book by Murray Sperber, “Shake Down the Thunder: The Creation of Notre Dame Football” which details much of the history of ND trying/wanting to join the Big Ten.

I was not aware of Texas wanting to bring, or having to bring, Texas Tech if they joined the Big Ten. I can see the Big Ten presidents not wanting to add TT. Also, I was not aware of the Big 12 losing out on FSU and Clemson because they got played by ND. I remember rumors a few years back about FSU and Clemson possible being targets for the Big 12 and both schools being open to leaving the ACC. I also agree that at some point ND’s arrangement with the ACC is going to cause friction – you can’t be a legitimate conference if one member is getting special treatment at the expense of the other members without it at some point boiling over. I also don’t think that one of either the Big 12 or ACC will be around in 10 years. I ‘m of the opinion that Delany/Big Ten are not done expanding – same with the SEC – but the Big Ten needs to make a bigger splash than Rutgers and Maryland. I don’t know how it might work, but I only see 2 options for the Big Ten: get ND and Texas somehow, or get Virginia and UNC.

Don’t hold your breath. Art’s a complainer, not an explainer.

Delany could have set up a deal with the Pittsburgh Steelers, but it wouldn’t mean anything unless the Presidents approved it. And the Big Ten Presidents are a very selective lot. The background on the Big Ten and Texas/Notre Dame is too involved to get into great detail here, but here are the CliffsNotes.

The only time the Big Ten “screwed it up” with respect to “Texas and Notre Dame” was in the early 1990s when Texas was looking for a home while the SWC was imploding. Texas’s first choice was the Pac 10. The Pac-10 actually had a vote on admitting Texas, but needed unanimous approval. Stanford voted against admitting Texas, so then Texas approached the Big Ten. There was mutual interest on both sides, but the Big Ten Presidents had a 4 year moratorium on expansion after inviting Penn State which wouldn’t run out till June of 1994.

Kansas and Missouri were also begging the Big Ten for a bid at the time, but the Big Ten Presidents stood firm and allowed Texas to go to the Big 12. If you could say the Big Ten “screwed up”, it was then when Texas was literally begging us for a bid.

The 2010 situation is a different story. Texas was playing us against the Pac-12 and Larry Scott (the Pac 12 Commissioner) to see who could give them a better deal. Although Delany wanted Texas, the Big Ten Presidents didn’t want some of the baggage that came along with it (Texas Tech). Delany was OK with Texas going to the Pac 10/12 along with Oklahoma, Colorado, Oklahoma State, Texas A&M, and Texas Tech, because it would add all 6 of those schools to the Rose Bowl coalition (the new contract was being negotiated).

Delany already had Nebraska on board. If Texas would have taken the other 5 schools out West, he was ready to give Missouri and Rutgers a bid. But Texas was more or less playing Scott for a sucker. Texas used the Pac 10/12 threat as leverage to negotiate the LHN deal with ESPN. Texas wanted their own Network, and ESPN didn’t want the Big 12 to implode, and send all that valuable property out to Larry Scott while he was in the process of negotiating his first tier rights.

In short, no matter what Delany wanted to do with Texas, the Presidents would have never voted for a Texas Tech.

Regarding Notre Dame, Delany wasn’t even alive when the problems started with Notre Dame. It all goes back to the early 1900’s which I’m not going to get into a lot of detail here. Suffice it to say that Notre Dame fans and alumni are butt hurt that they were repeatedly turned down for Big Ten membership over the years. Rockne campaigned over and over again for membership, and was rebuffed. Some Notre Damers think it was because they were a Catholic Institution, and are still pi$$ed.

The Notre Dame Faculty absolutely love us. But the knucklehead fanbase and alumni hate us. In 1999, the Notre Dame Faculty Senate (the academics) voted 25 to 4 to join the Big Ten. However, the Board of Trustees, under heavy pressure from the alumni and the donors, voted no.

We have talked with Notre Dame over the years off and on, but there would be an absolute mutiny from their fan base, alumni, and donors if they joined us. The smartest thing Delany did was, unlike the Big 12, move on from Notre Dame, and pull the trigger on Nebraska, Maryland, and Rutgers.

Notre Dame’s prima donna demands have helped destroy one league (Big East), and is starting to cause increasing fractures in another (ACC). The Big 12 screwed up getting Clemson with Florida State before the ACC signed their GOR because Texas puppet master DeLoss Dodds and a couple of puppet Big 12 Commissioners were being played for fools by Notre Dame's Jack Swarbrick. If the Big 12 would have acted on Clemson and Florida State when they had the chance instead of waiting for Notre Dame, the Big 12 wouldn't be in the situation they are in right now.

The Big Ten Presidents are not going to bend over like the ACC is for a research lightweight like Notre Dame. Full membership with no special privileges???? Sure. But Notre Dame would have to agree to be an equal partner, which they won’t.

 

[Rollin Stone]

How exactly does a conference championship game determine a true conference champion? It doesn't. For starters it doesn't even guarantee the two best teams in the conference will play in the conference championship game. And secondly, even if it did, how would having the two top teams in the conference play a game after the regular season determine a true conference champion? The conference champion is the team that performed best DURING the regular season.

So then by your logic, if I am correct, then you can't have a true National Champion unless every team plays every other team. I understand what you are saying that unless you play everyone that you can't have a true champion. Then who is the champion on a 3-way tie? These things happen, unless you have one team beat everyone else. Also what if a team loses early on or on a fluke play to a lesser team, who is the better team, the one playing great at the end of the year or the team with the best record.

I guess my point is that there will always be some subjectiveness (sic), I don't think you can get around it, but what is the best way? If 2 teams finish the year at the top of their divisions, they should play each other for the championship. I don't think that one division champ isn't the best team because they didn't play the 3rd ranked team in the other division. You win your division you advance, yes it is possible that the 2nd place in the east is better than the 1st in the west, like in the SEC some years.

But a champ game is the best solution, in my opinion. Also, I think that D-1's need to have a 16 team playoff, if the d-2's and d-3's can do it d-1 can. Heck d-2 have 24 teams with byes, d-3's have 32 teams and they start a week later than d-1's. My 2 cents.

 

[pandaczar12]

How exactly does a conference championship game determine a true conference champion? It doesn't. For starters it doesn't even guarantee the two best teams in the conference will play in the conference championship game. And secondly, even if it did, how would having the two top teams in the conference play a game after the regular season determine a true conference champion? The conference champion is the team that performed best DURING the regular season.

How doesn't a conference championship game (in a 16 team league) determine a true champion? Because every team in each 8 team division plays every other team DURING the regular season. The team with the best division record wins the division and plays the winner of the other division. The winner of that game is the undisputed conference champion. By your strange logic, the national champion has to be crowned during the regular season.

Since you ignored the question, I assume you were happy with OSU being co-champs with PSU despite losing to PSU on the field. Yep, your system is great!

Instead of just throwing random sh!t against the wall to see what sticks, maybe just consider that your way of thinking is wrong?

 

[joedirt47]

There's also that whole 'Money" thing. We're getting more that then B12 teams even before the new contract kicks in.

Money is the root of all evil. Once money gets factored in, greed takes over, and doing things the RIGHT way gets thrown out the window.
I fully believe that if we hadn't joined the Big Suck Ten, Joe's East Coast Conference would be a major conference, and Joe would have retired peacefully, and we'd be going to Joe Paterno Stadium to watch another national champion team in 2015.

 

[Op2]

How doesn't a conference championship game (in a 16 team league) determine a true champion? Because every team in each 8 team division plays every other team DURING the regular season. The team with the best division record wins the division and plays the winner of the other division. The winner of that game is the undisputed conference champion. By your strange logic, the national champion has to be crowned during the regular season.

Since you ignored the question, I assume you were happy with OSU being co-champs with PSU despite losing to PSU on the field. Yep, your system is great!

Instead of just throwing random sh!t against the wall to see what sticks, maybe just consider that your way of thinking is wrong?

A team wins their division by having the best conference record, not best division record. So each team plays the 7 teams in their division and 2 others from the other division. So the team with the best record wins the division even though they didn't play the same schedule as everybody else.

It's not feasible to crown a national champion of 125 teams in a 12 game season. It is possible to crown a conference champion if your conference isn't too big.

Sometimes a team that is one of the top two teams in a conference doesn't even make it to the conference title game. It's just a money making scheme that uses up a weekend. People in favor of a playoff should be especially against it because there are a limited number of weekends to begin with.

 

[anon_is9z1n0h3zblb]

Money is the root of all evil. Once money gets factored in, greed takes over, and doing things the RIGHT way gets thrown out the window.
I fully believe that if we hadn't joined the Big Suck Ten, Joe's East Coast Conference would be a major conference, and Joe would have retired peacefully, and we'd be going to Joe Paterno Stadium to watch another national champion team in 2015.

But there is no East Coast Conference and we're not going to end up on the B12, or the ACC, no matter how much anyone wishes it would happen. We're staying for the money.

 

[Op2]

I don't understand why so many think that an East Coast Conference would've been some kind of great think that everyone would love. Even if there was an East Coast Conference, if the Big Ten came calling for PSU and they offered more money PSU would go, or any other school in the conference would too.

An East Coast Conference could be formed tomorrow if the schools wanted it. If it's so great for everyone then why don't they do it?

 

[pandaczar12]

A team wins their division by having the best conference record, not best division record. So each team plays the 7 teams in their division and 2 others from the other division. So the team with the best record wins the division even though they didn't play the same schedule as everybody else.

It's not feasible to crown a national champion of 125 teams in a 12 game season. It is possible to crown a conference champion if your conference isn't too big.

Sometimes a team that is one of the top two teams in a conference doesn't even make it to the conference title game. It's just a money making scheme that uses up a weekend. People in favor of a playoff should be especially against it because there are a limited number of weekends to begin with.

You talk in absolutes like a 16 team conference exists and you know how it operates. But in reality we are talking a hypothetical situation, a 16 team Big 10. So we are free to create whatever system we want. OOC games don't factor in to winning your conference, so why do you assume that OOD games would factor in to winning your division? Oh, because then you'd have to admit you are wrong.

It's not feasible to crown a national champion of 125 teams in a 12 game season. That's why we have a post season.

Who cares if the top two teams (in some opinions) didn't make it to the conference title game? (i.e. the best two teams are in the west, and the east has no one who comes close). If a team can't win their division, they don't deserve to play for the conference. People in favor of a playoff should be especially for it because there are a limited number of weekends to begin with, and adding a round of conference championships games essentially expands the playoff.

 

[Op2]

You talk in absolutes like a 16 team conference exists and you know how it operates. But in reality we are talking a hypothetical situation, a 16 team Big 10. So we are free to create whatever system we want. OOC games don't factor in to winning your conference, so why do you assume that OOD games would factor in to winning your division? Oh, because then you'd have to admit you are wrong.

It's not feasible to crown a national champion of 125 teams in a 12 game season. That's why we have a post season.

Who cares if the top two teams (in some opinions) didn't make it to the conference title game? (i.e. the best two teams are in the west, and the east has no one who comes close). If a team can't win their division, they don't deserve to play for the conference. People in favor of a playoff should be especially for it because there are a limited number of weekends to begin with, and adding a round of conference championships games essentially expands the playoff.

I wasn't thinking in terms of the Big Ten but rather was using the method the SEC uses. I'm guessing other conferences use it too. If a conference had 16 or 18 teams and each team in an 8 or 9 team division only played the other teams in its division to determine the division champ and then the two division champs played to determine the winner of the 16/18 team conference then I think that would be great from a fairness standpoint but note that at that point it would operating as if it were two 8/9 team conferences instead of one 16/18 team conference.

Personally I'd like to have a bunch of 8/9/10 team conferences with the champion of each determined in the regular season and then the champions of each making a playoff, as well as some at large teams. But the number of weeks for a playoff is limited and one of them is used up by the conference championship game.