College Football 2016 - B1G expectations

[DireWolfSpirit]

14 hours ago, dbunting said:

Well, Wisconsin lost to Michigan and OSU, plus you have to get past Nebraska to face either one. Even if Wisconsin beats Nebraska, if no one else does then Nebraska would go and not Wisconsin. Still a long time to go to worry about that stuff though.

I will say that as a Michigan fan it was nice to see this be a tight game, makes me feel better about Michigan's close win over Wisconsin.

I think you misunderstood my post. I was taliking about how Wisky playing well against OSU bodes well for the Wolverines chances in The Game, it read like you thought I was typing something about the Badgers chances.

The part of your post I bolded is pretty much the same thing I meant to say in my post, i'm not a Wisconsin native.

Anyways yes we have Nebraska still left in the mix for the Big 10 Championship, personally i'm hoping to see OSU V UofM playing each other as the #2 vs #3 , both undefeated for The Game, that would be one for the ages imo.

[dbunting]

4 hours ago, DireWolfSpirit said:

I think you misunderstood my post. I was taliking about how Wisky playing well against OSU bodes well for the Wolverines chances in The Game, it read like you thought I was typing something about the Badgers chances.

The part of your post I bolded is pretty much the same thing I meant to say in my post, i'm not a Wisconsin native.

Anyways yes we have Nebraska still left in the mix for the Big 10 Championship, personally i'm hoping to see OSU V UofM playing each other as the #2 vs #3 , both undefeated for The Game, that would be one for the ages imo.

Ok, that makes more sense, I totally misread that.

[Ded As Ned]

14 hours ago, Ferrum Aeternum said:

Sadly I believe any controversy will come to an end Saturday night when revitalized LSU lays waste to OM in death valley. Coach O's ultimate revenge fantasy come true. 

To quote someone else upthread... YOU GOTTA BELIEVE MAN!!! 

[sperry]

8 hours ago, JonSnow4President said:

When something like half the last decades national titles are SEC, by multiple SEC teams, it's hard to say they're not 

For the last decade heading into the season (2006-2015.  Unfortunately, the query site I can find does count Texas A&M and Missouri's games prior to their joining)

Conference   SEC Win Percentage Overall      SEC Win Percentage Neutral Site

ACC                 .606                                                 .697
Big 12              .582                                                 .758
Big 10              .633                                                  .667
Pac 12             .571                                                  .600

In other words, they beat everyone of note more than that conference beats them especially at neutral sites.  I'm not including MAC, CUSA, SunBelt, etc for obvious reasons, but the SEC actually struggles with the AAC more than any other conference (.558 win percentage).

 

This is distorted by the SEC's extremely favorable bowl tie-ins, as well as the fact that Alabama has been dominant over this period and has like a 90% win percentage over the time period in non-con games. 

 

The SEC is 5-5 agianst the P5 this year. They'll end up 6-7, 5-8 by the end of the year.

[Ded As Ned]

So... the Big 12 decided to stick with fuzzy math after all and not expand?  

[Ferrum Aeternum]

4 hours ago, Ded As Ned said:

To quote someone else upthread... YOU GOTTA BELIEVE MAN!!! 

That person may not have been entirely sober when he wrote that!     

[DireWolfSpirit]

WHEEEEEEEEEEYAH!! 

Any Given Saturday man, Any Given Saturday!

[S John]

2 hours ago, Ded As Ned said:

So... the Big 12 decided to stick with fuzzy math after all and not expand?  

I would not have minded an expansion by two that would allow us to split into 2 divisions for the championship game and maybe even go to 8 conference games instead of nine, freeing up an extra game for an OOC slot that WVU could fill with a local game.  If that happened I wanted BYU and Houston.  

Since it did not happen, I am not too upset about it because, from a WVU perspective, if the Big XII DOES collapse in 8 years when the Grant of Rights goes away, the less competition there is for a life-raft from 'ex-P5' teams the better.  As it stands, in 8 years WVU will be the only eastern school available that has enjoyed P5 revenue, recruiting/depth, and media exposure over the previous decade or so.  If the Big XII expands and starts adding teams like Houston, or Cincy, or USF then those teams get to play catch up and are sitting pretty in states with 10 times the population of West Virginia.  So in that respect, if everything ultimately goes to shit with the Big XII, I think we are better off as the lone unattached P4-ready program east of the Mississippi.  

The other thing is that being on an island, contrary to what I thought would happen, has actually been pretty good for WVU's recruiting.  We are the only eastern school that offers the opportunity to play in or defend the types of pass heavy offenses featured heavily in the Big XII.  If an east coast kid likes that style, he's got one opportunity close to home.  We go adding Cincy, and USF - all of the sudden those kids we are pulling out of Ohio or Florida don't have to go to WVU to play that style and stay in the same time zone, and we probably wouldn't get as many of them.  In the age of TV , local exposure in the form of playing a lot of local games is somewhat overrated.  I pretty much get to watch every college football game I want to.  I live in Texas and every single WVU game where they are playing a D1 opponent has been on TV out here.  We fill our OOC schedule with as many regional teams as we can, and that has been OK so far without the need to play regional teams for regional recruiting.  WVU still recruits the same areas we always have and hardly recruits Texas at all.  

And finally, I like the double round-robin for basketball and expanding would have ruined that.  A home and home conference game with every team in the conference is an ideal set-up for basketball, imo.  I like the round robin in football too, but I'm not sure how much I'm going to continue like it if they tack a championship game on top of it.  Say what you will, but 9 conference games and not being able to duck anyone in conference - ever- is challenging.  I think the champ game is overrated, but the playoffs like that '13th data point' so I'm sure the Big XII will implement one.  

[Rhom]

1 hour ago, S John said:

I would not have minded an expansion by two that would allow us to split into 2 divisions for the championship game and maybe even go to 8 conference games instead of nine, freeing up an extra game for an OOC slot that WVU could fill with a local game.  If that happened I wanted BYU and Houston.  

Since it did not happen, I am not too upset about it because, from a WVU perspective, if the Big XII DOES collapse in 8 years when the Grant of Rights goes away, the less competition there is for a life-raft from 'ex-P5' teams the better.  As it stands, in 8 years WVU will be the only eastern school available that has enjoyed P5 revenue, recruiting/depth, and media exposure over the previous decade or so.  If the Big XII expands and starts adding teams like Houston, or Cincy, or USF then those teams get to play catch up and are sitting pretty in states with 10 times the population of West Virginia.  So in that respect, if everything ultimately goes to shit with the Big XII, I think we are better off as the lone unattached P4-ready program east of the Mississippi.  

The other thing is that being on an island, contrary to what I thought would happen, has actually been pretty good for WVU's recruiting.  We are the only eastern school that offers the opportunity to play in or defend the types of pass heavy offenses featured heavily in the Big XII.  If an east coast kid likes that style, he's got one opportunity close to home.  We go adding Cincy, and USF - all of the sudden those kids we are pulling out of Ohio or Florida don't have to go to WVU to play that style and stay in the same time zone, and we probably wouldn't get as many of them.  In the age of TV , local exposure in the form of playing a lot of local games is somewhat overrated.  I pretty much get to watch every college football game I want to.  I live in Texas and every single WVU game where they are playing a D1 opponent has been on TV out here.  We fill our OOC schedule with as many regional teams as we can, and that has been OK so far without the need to play regional teams for regional recruiting.  WVU still recruits the same areas we always have and hardly recruits Texas at all.  

And finally, I like the double round-robin for basketball and expanding would have ruined that.  A home and home conference game with every team in the conference is an ideal set-up for basketball, imo.  I like the round robin in football too, but I'm not sure how much I'm going to continue like it if they tack a championship game on top of it.  Say what you will, but 9 conference games and not being able to duck anyone in conference - ever- is challenging.  I think the champ game is overrated, but the playoffs like that '13th data point' so I'm sure the Big XII will implement one.  

Interesting take.  I hadn't thought of it in those terms, but it does make sense.

When the obvious next round of expansion happens, it will be interesting to see who gets a seat at the table.  Notre Dame will finally give up its farce of being independent and be a full ACC member.  Texas and Oklahoma will likely part ways with one going to the PAC and another to the SEC.  Where does everyone else wind up?  Every scenario I think of winds up with Kansas as the improbable left out.  As one of the true basketball royalty, it bothers me to see them excluded from all the speculation.  Barring some wise maneuvering by the SEC over the years and UK's willingness to be a doormat in football, that could have easily been the Wildcats.

[Howdyphillip]

1 hour ago, Rhom said:

Interesting take.  I hadn't thought of it in those terms, but it does make sense.

When the obvious next round of expansion happens, it will be interesting to see who gets a seat at the table.  Notre Dame will finally give up its farce of being independent and be a full ACC member.  Texas and Oklahoma will likely part ways with one going to the PAC and another to the SEC.  Where does everyone else wind up?  Every scenario I think of winds up with Kansas as the improbable left out.  As one of the true basketball royalty, it bothers me to see them excluded from all the speculation.  Barring some wise maneuvering by the SEC over the years and UK's willingness to be a doormat in football, that could have easily been the Wildcats.

I really do not see any scenario where these two teams don't stay together. Whatever happens in the next ten years, Oklahoma and Texas will ride it out together. That relationship is just too important for both parties.

[JonSnow4President]

15 minutes ago, Howdyphillip said:

I really do not see any scenario where these two teams don't stay together. Whatever happens in the next ten years, Oklahoma and Texas will ride it out together. That relationship is just too important for both parties.

I've heard that one before.  I know Texas views Oklahoma as their rival moreso than A&M, but the exact same line was used before A&M left.

[S John]

2 hours ago, Rhom said:

Interesting take.  I hadn't thought of it in those terms, but it does make sense.

When the obvious next round of expansion happens, it will be interesting to see who gets a seat at the table.  Notre Dame will finally give up its farce of being independent and be a full ACC member.  Texas and Oklahoma will likely part ways with one going to the PAC and another to the SEC.  Where does everyone else wind up?  Every scenario I think of winds up with Kansas as the improbable left out.  As one of the true basketball royalty, it bothers me to see them excluded from all the speculation.  Barring some wise maneuvering by the SEC over the years and UK's willingness to be a doormat in football, that could have easily been the Wildcats.

Personally, I think Kansas is only behind OU and UT in terms of being guaranteed a possible soft landing spot.  They have AAU status and as you mentioned are basketball royalty.  I think they'd be a perfect fit for the B1G.

I would be lying if I said this isn't something that worries me in terms of WVU.  We have a better football and basketball program than most out there, but this is about $$ and the whole state of West Virginia is smaller population-wise than a good many cities, let alone states.  It would be a real injustice for WVU to get sidelined after over 100 years of competing against the highest level of competition in both sports, but I do not think it is at all out of the realm of possibility.

With that little bit of pessimism out of the way, I do not think that the demise of the Big XII is necessarily inevitable.  There are a few issues that don't often get talked about while fans and the media are all working themselves into a lather over the realignment possibilities.

For one thing, Texas, Oklahoma, and Kansas have a little problem called Texas Tech (and Baylor), Kansas State, and Oklahoma State.  It is not at all clear that it would be easy for any of those schools to shake off little brother.  Because this time, it isn't just about one school going to a different conference (like A&M did, for example), it's about leaving them in a severely disadvantaged situation where they are outside the P4 looking in and will inevitably lose revenue as ESPN and Fox dole out peanuts to whatever remaining Big XII teams there are.  When you get right down to it will OU be allowed to dick over Oklahoma State like that?  Can KU get away with hanging Wildcats out to dry?  Hell, half the Texas legislature have Baylor law degrees.  We have seen a lot of realignment moves so far - but one thing we have NOT seen is one state university leave behind one of their in-state buddies in a situation that leaves that school without a seat at the table.  So either those schools stay tethered together, or state politics get involved with this nightmare.

Another thing we have not seen happen is ANY team with a long history of major conference football be left out.  Just look at the old Big East.  When it finally broke apart the BCS was still in place and the conference still had an auto-bid.  Cincy, USF, and UConn kinda got left in the lurch, but all of those programs were recently bumped up to the, say 'BCS' level of the sport.  Every single Big East team with a long history in that category got a home.  Pitt, WVU, Syracuse, even Rutgers.  The idea of 4-5 current Big XII schools essentially get relegated is something we have not actually seen yet in realignment and I do wonder if that would really fly - if general college football fans might kick up a stink.  How you gonna remove WVU, TCU, Kansas State, Oklahoma State from the big boy table when Wake Forest and Northwestern and Illinois and Vandy are raking in 30+ million a year for their football efforts?  I'll obviously be upset about that, and presumably a lot of others will be too.

And finally, the Big XII is dysfunctional.  But there can be no doubt that OU and Texas run the conference.  As long as the money stays comparable to others and the conference stays intact, I am not convinced that either school would truly be happier in a conference where they are just another member, just another single vote, and don't rule the roost the way they do in the Big XII.  Hell, Texas can't even win the Big XII with every damned advantage in the world, do they think theyll suddenly be competing for conference titles in the SEC or the B1G or the PAC?  If they think the Big XII is what is holding them back they are delusional.  Anyway, in the XII OU and UT are top dogs and in any other conference they will be one of many blue blood type programs and won't have the same influence.  

[DireWolfSpirit]

I'm primarily a Big 10 follower so forgive my naive questions on this but-

Why does the Big 12 have to break up at all? It seems like a fine conference as is, what is its flaw anyways? Is Texas threatening to bolt?

[Michael Seswatha Jordan]

No, Texas is not threatening to bolt, not OU for that matter. This to me, at least, is a media hype sorta thing. Something to fill the time slots. Why would either want to join a conf, as S. John says, where they are not the BIG DOGS and the controlling voice of the conf? I believe the BIGXII is fine, though I would, ya know, like to see 12 teams.

[dbunting]

3 hours ago, Michael Seswatha Jordan said:

No, Texas is not threatening to bolt, not OU for that matter. This to me, at least, is a media hype sorta thing. Something to fill the time slots. Why would either want to join a conf, as S. John says, where they are not the BIG DOGS and the controlling voice of the conf? I believe the BIGXII is fine, though I would, ya know, like to see 12 teams.

I agree, I think they just need to get their member numbers up to match the rest of the power 5 conferences and go from there. They would benefit greatly though by making good choices on who to bring in. Could they be the conference to bring in Notre Dame finally. Say if they put Notre Dame into a division that is weaker, to sort of guarantee them they win their division 8 out of 10 years on average, something like that to make it attractive?

[Rhom]

7 hours ago, DireWolfSpirit said:

I'm primarily a Big 10 follower so forgive my naive questions on this but-

Why does the Big 12 have to break up at all? It seems like a fine conference as is, what is its flaw anyways? Is Texas threatening to bolt?

The big driving factor is the inevitable move to "Super Conferences."  Its been apparent for quite some time that the eventual move will be four large conferences that are largely regional.  The major push for this is for the conferences/schools to dictate their own positions.  The NCAA has to represent all schools from the Texases to the Stephen F Austins of the world.  Most major schools would likely be in favor of paying athletes for example.  It would be no big deal for Alabama to offer stipends to football recruits or Kentucky to pay actual cost of attendance to basketball players.  Where it breaks down is when Troy has to do the same.  This leads to the hypocrisy of schools bringing in millions of dollars on the efforts of the players while poor Nigel Hayes begs for pennies like the guy on the median outside my Wal Mart.  Because there are far more small schools than big, it prevents the major conference schools from taking some common sense measures.

Eventually, the current conference structure will break down and there will be 4 Super Conferences of 16 teams.  They will then leave the NCAA and set their own governing structure.  This was within days of happening last time around when Texas was about to take the PAC's offer.  They stayed and it delayed the process.  The NCAA then took some steps to ease restrictions on the larger schools in an effort to placate them.  It will happen though.

[Michael Seswatha Jordan]

27 minutes ago, dbunting said:

I agree, I think they just need to get their member numbers up to match the rest of the power 5 conferences and go from there. They would benefit greatly though by making good choices on who to bring in. Could they be the conference to bring in Notre Dame finally. Say if they put Notre Dame into a division that is weaker, to sort of guarantee them they win their division 8 out of 10 years on average, something like that to make it attractive?

Yea, I honestly think they are waiting for the right two schools to jump over from one of the P5's. Notre Dame would be great, but logically I see them going to the ACC if anywhere.

[MisterOJ]

1 hour ago, Rhom said:

The big driving factor is the inevitable move to "Super Conferences."  Its been apparent for quite some time that the eventual move will be four large conferences that are largely regional.  The major push for this is for the conferences/schools to dictate their own positions.  The NCAA has to represent all schools from the Texases to the Stephen F Austins of the world.  Most major schools would likely be in favor of paying athletes for example.  It would be no big deal for Alabama to offer stipends to football recruits or Kentucky to pay actual cost of attendance to basketball players.  Where it breaks down is when Troy has to do the same.  This leads to the hypocrisy of schools bringing in millions of dollars on the efforts of the players while poor Nigel Hayes begs for pennies like the guy on the median outside my Wal Mart.  Because there are far more small schools than big, it prevents the major conference schools from taking some common sense measures.

Eventually, the current conference structure will break down and there will be 4 Super Conferences of 16 teams.  They will then leave the NCAA and set their own governing structure.  This was within days of happening last time around when Texas was about to take the PAC's offer.  They stayed and it delayed the process.  The NCAA then took some steps to ease restrictions on the larger schools in an effort to placate them.  It will happen though.

I don't necessarily disagree with you, except for the sentence I bolded. Why stop at 16 teams apiece? There's no reason one or two of the conferences can't go to 18 or even 20. I know 16 is seen as ideal in some scheduling respects and whatnot, but if a conference finds that it makes sense monetarily or is politically expedient (because you have to figure a school like Kansas has some political pull that would be used top make sure they're not left out) to include more than just 16, then they would do it.

[Ded As Ned]

I've often wondered if they did a pyramid type thing in the same vein as European football (soccer), if that would work.  Albeit I have only a faint understanding of how it works in that sport other than teams move up or down the various levels over time based on performance (I think?).  Don't really know if it's feasible in college athletics, especially with all the various rivalries and traditions, but I kind of like the idea.  

[Ferrum Aeternum]

21 minutes ago, Ded As Ned said:

I've often wondered if they did a pyramid type thing in the same vein as European football (soccer), if that would work.  Albeit I have only a faint understanding of how it works in that sport other than teams move up or down the various levels over time based on performance (I think?).  Don't really know if it's feasible in college athletics, especially with all the various rivalries and traditions, but I kind of like the idea.  

The topic of relegation has come up before. My take is that it's a poor cultural fit in the US and thus would never be implemented or even taken seriously as an idea.  Can you imagine a situation where, say, Texas has an awful season and is then relegated down to a schedule of schools like Incarnate Word and Lamar every week? Besides as you say, it would gut rivalries which are the lifeblood of the sport.

I do think the 4 conference / 64 team model makes the most sense in the long run. That's exactly 50% of the current FBS programs and would encompass virtually every school with either the groundswell of fans or market presence (or both) to make sense as a big time sports draw. I don't have the exact numbers in front of me, but I'd guess that the bottom 50% of FBS teams on average pull in a tiny fraction of fan interest compared to the top 50%.