The Pac-10 will be playing a format in which all league members will play one another eliminating the need for a championship game.

The reaction from the Big Televen could be pretty interesting. If it is a success for the PAC-10 (which it will be, its a no-brainer) could the Big Televen look to contract by a team to create a level playing field for its conference and eliminate the need for a championship game? A game that its never played and a game that makes it tougher for the respective conference to win a national title while adding only marginal value to a conference like the Big 10?

Hmmmmmm...

Will the Big East be looking in Basketball...talk about your level playing fields. Sorry a little off topic but I can't help myself. I agree, Championship games in football are just the result of greedy conference commisioners. :mad:

cardtopper Wrote:Will the Big East be looking in Basketball...talk about your level playing fields. Sorry a little off topic but I can't help myself. I agree, Championship games in football are just the result of greedy conference commisioners. :mad:

I'm thinking:

IMO...

a) The Big Ten will never
willingly contract or dismiss a member. One of the oldest and most prestigious conferences, with ties far deeper than sports, the Big Ten membership is as tight a brotherhood as exists in 1-A. Apart from MSU and PSU, the league has been together as comprised today since 1917, and even MSU has been in the league since 1953.

Kick out PSU? Hardly. Even when having down years the Lion following is huge in the northeast and throughout the country, such that they pull their economic weight within the conference and then some.

The most realistic possibility would be Northwestern dropping football, which is as likely as me winning the Mega Millions seeing as they're a founding member and have played football since the late 1800's.

Now, might PSU (or someone else) leave of their own choosing? It's possible... provided their new home has the financial security and academic prestige to match what the Big Ten offers.

b) The Pac 10 is pursuing round robin play for several reasons:
- hosting ooc opponents is comparably more expensive for them without the abundance of minor programs within driving distance (a la the Big Ten and the MAC);
- They're loathe to foster stronger relationships with the WAC and MWC for fear of legitimizing another western conference and/or select programs;
- Pac 10 fans are fickle and would more likely show up for a conference game that for Weber State;
- It should provide everyone a stronger strength of schedule for the polls;
- It gives the Pac 10 more face time on TV as a conference, something it's trying to bolster along with overall national appeal.

The Big Ten doesn't have the same problems, or at the least doesn't have them at the same scale. Like the SEC their programs thrive on, and make millions off of, out of conference games that are scheduled purely for the money and the W. Until someone dislodges them from the spot, the Big Ten has the second best TV deal to the SEC, guaranteeing more national exposure than everyone else and avoiding weekday play.

c) While the conference championship games might serve as a stumbling block to BCS and/or national title game appearances, it could be argued the absence of a round robin schedule has helped the Big Ten add teams to higher end bowl games. Purdue is touted as a BCS contender this year specifically because of the absence of OSU and Michigan from their schedule. And, IIRC, the year Iowa played in the Orange Bowl they benefitted from having 1-2 other powers off their schedule. So if the argument against a conference championship game is that it provides an unecessary risk to their champion, the same could apply to moving to a full round robin schedule.

d) If the Big Ten ever did host a conference championship game, and some factions in the league have expressed support for the idea, I'm guessing it would be at least the second highest grossing, if not the highest grossing, title game going. Which would mean a guaranteed TV deal for $7-9 M for the broadcast, perhaps another $5M for other rights. It would pay for itself, almost regardless of who #12 would be.

e) Considering members within the conference have also expressed discontent with the BCS and the desire to simply go back to a Pac 10/Big Ten Rose Bowl every year, I get the feeling the conference would be comfortable letting their performances decide the merit of any mythical national titles, playoffs or no playoffs. When you figure that the Rose Bowl contract is exclusive of the BCS, and both the Big Ten and Pac 10 merely receive $3M bonuses for participating in the BCS, it seems apparent they'd rather just have their champions meet their regardless of national title consequences.

GunnerFan Wrote:IMO...

a) The Big Ten will never
willingly contract or dismiss a member. One of the oldest and most prestigious conferences, with ties far deeper than sports, the Big Ten membership is as tight a brotherhood as exists in 1-A. Apart from MSU and PSU, the league has been together as comprised today since 1917, and even MSU has been in the league since 1953.

Kick out PSU? Hardly. Even when having down years the Lion following is huge in the northeast and throughout the country, such that they pull their economic weight within the conference and then some.

The most realistic possibility would be Northwestern dropping football, which is as likely as me winning the Mega Millions seeing as they're a founding member and have played football since the late 1800's.

Now, might PSU (or someone else) leave of their own choosing? It's possible... provided their new home has the financial security and academic prestige to match what the Big Ten offers.

b) The Pac 10 is pursuing round robin play for several reasons:
- hosting ooc opponents is comparably more expensive for them without the abundance of minor programs within driving distance (a la the Big Ten and the MAC);
- They're loathe to foster stronger relationships with the WAC and MWC for fear of legitimizing another western conference and/or select programs;
- Pac 10 fans are fickle and would more likely show up for a conference game that for Weber State;
- It should provide everyone a stronger strength of schedule for the polls;
- It gives the Pac 10 more face time on TV as a conference, something it's trying to bolster along with overall national appeal.

The Big Ten doesn't have the same problems, or at the least doesn't have them at the same scale. Like the SEC their programs thrive on, and make millions off of, out of conference games that are scheduled purely for the money and the W. Until someone dislodges them from the spot, the Big Ten has the second best TV deal to the SEC, guaranteeing more national exposure than everyone else and avoiding weekday play.

c) While the conference championship games might serve as a stumbling block to BCS and/or national title game appearances, it could be argued the absence of a round robin schedule has helped the Big Ten add teams to higher end bowl games. Purdue is touted as a BCS contender this year specifically because of the absence of OSU and Michigan from their schedule. And, IIRC, the year Iowa played in the Orange Bowl they benefitted from having 1-2 other powers off their schedule. So if the argument against a conference championship game is that it provides an unecessary risk to their champion, the same could apply to moving to a full round robin schedule.

d) If the Big Ten ever did host a conference championship game, and some factions in the league have expressed support for the idea, I'm guessing it would be at least the second highest grossing, if not the highest grossing, title game going. Which would mean a guaranteed TV deal for $7-9 M for the broadcast, perhaps another $5M for other rights. It would pay for itself, almost regardless of who #12 would be.

e) Considering members within the conference have also expressed discontent with the BCS and the desire to simply go back to a Pac 10/Big Ten Rose Bowl every year, I get the feeling the conference would be comfortable letting their performances decide the merit of any mythical national titles, playoffs or no playoffs. When you figure that the Rose Bowl contract is exclusive of the BCS, and both the Big Ten and Pac 10 merely receive $3M bonuses for participating in the BCS, it seems apparent they'd rather just have their champions meet their regardless of national title consequences.

Yeah, what he said.

This league has a lot of work to do before PSU will even consder us...football quality has to get better across the board....Uconn and UL will need staduim expansion....UCs fan base must improve...USF must establish itself as a very solid football school...Rutgers has to beome competitive

-- Besides nothing will happen on this front untill Joe Pa retires....if he won't give Pitt or WVU a one for one now...the chances of PSU coming back east while he is in charge are next to zero

-- Personally...I don't think the Big 10 will be crying if PSU left



Jackson

Jackson1011 Wrote:...UCs fan base must improve...

Yeah, I know. Problem is, 7-3 victories over I-AA teams isn't the way to build a fan base. It's well documented that not a lot of "fans" are patient when it comes to UC football. I do think folks will come out due to the opponents, and those opponents will bring good crowds, but that's really a copout, looking at the big picture. Nippert needs to average 28-30,000 UC FANS.

I'm optimistic that your point about the football quality improving will take care of itself. UL is obviously already a BCS caliber program, USF and UC are just starting to compete for talent in the recruiting wars, and most of the holdovers have a lot of young talent that will only get better.

Stadium expansion: I think Louisville is already working on it. Curious to see how that's going and what UConn is up to.

Pac 10 playing extra conf game might cost them 1 or 2 bowl games yr. [10-0 vs WAC 5-5 xtra conf game] Might cost them BCS spot or chance at NC.

Big Ten voted on going to 9 conference games, and even talked about going to 10 conference games.
The 9 conference game amendment was voted down 9-1-1. Only Illinois wanted to see it...Michigan somewhat agreed, but abstained. At leas that is how I remember reading it.
Big Ten will not contract...only expand.

why would the big 10 kick psu out or let em go. psu is big for the midwestern schools to recruit on the eastern shore. look @ all the recruits from pa go to michigan alone. comon now they would be makin a huge mistake lettin psu go.

I wish ya'll would give up on this Penn St. and Notre Shame stuff and join in reality.

As soon as USC loses, the Bandwagon will crash and the Pac-10 will dissapear agiain...
The question is who will beat USC?
(I pray its ND, but the odds of that are less likely than winning the lottery)

Quote:Schedule hurts Big Ten


By John Niyo / Scripps Howard News Service


At the most recent meeting of Big Ten Conference athletic directors, Michigan's Bill Martin could've used a friend.

"You know the guy that wore the mask? What was he called?" Martin said last week, laughing. "Well, that was me: the Lone Ranger."

When it came time to discuss the league's unbalanced schedule in football -- a huge stumbling block in deciding a true league champion each fall -- Martin couldn't find a single Tonto in the group. A proposal to adopt a round-robin schedule fell on mostly deaf ears.

"It was one of things where it was, 'OK, anybody here going to support me on that?'" Martin said. "I mean, I understand the position of the other institutions in our conference, but I just think it would make a Big Ten championship a little more meaningful."

And equitable, as we might discover yet again this fall. The Big Ten has never been particularly good with numbers -- not since adding an 11th member (Penn State) in 1993.

For more than a decade now, the league title, which now carries with it an automatic Bowl Championship Series spot, has been decided even though each team only plays eight of its 10 conference opponents.

The Pac-10 Conference, with 10 members, solved a similar problem recently when it voted to make the switch to play nine league games instead of eight. Playing nine league games isn't an option for the Big Ten -- trust me on the math here -- and the league isn't prepared to make the leap to 10, even with the NCAA approving a 12-game regular season beginning in 2006.

"If you want a true champion, I guess you go to a full round-robin," Iowa coach Kirk Ferentz said. "But I don't think that's realistic or humanistic."

No, the reality is the league wants to send as many teams to postseason bowls as possible. Adding two more conference games to the schedule would not only rob teams of easy-money home games in non-conference play -- it also likely would prevent one or two Big Ten teams from getting the six or seven victories needed to be bowl-eligible at season's end.

The only solution would be to add a 12th team and split into two divisions, like the Big 12, Southeastern Conference or Atlantic Coast Conference. Those leagues play for division titles and then hold a championship game to decide their BCS automatic bid. The Big Ten has tried to woo Notre Dame to no avail. And none of the other schools mentioned as possible expansion targets -- Pittsburgh, Syracuse, Missouri -- appears to be a suitable alternative.

Fair enough, but here's the problem with the status quo: It threatens to crown the wrong league champion.

In the Big Ten, it's not necessarily how you played, but who you played, and this year that's a loaded question.

Asked before the season about his team's title hopes, Purdue coach Joe Tiller joked, "We have Ohio State and Michigan right where we want 'em."

That would be off the schedule -- the Boilermakers don't play either team this fall. And if they can beat Notre Dame on Oct. 1 to complete a perfect non-conference slate, they would own a head-to-head tiebreaker with either the Wolverines or the Buckeyes -- though Ohio State almost certainly would be ranked higher -- if they finished tied for the league title.

The same could be true for Michigan State, which doesn't play Iowa or Wisconsin -- the Spartans would win a tiebreaker with either team if tied for first. Ditto Wisconsin, if it finished tied with Ohio State, a team it won't face in 2005. And so on.

"Some years the schedule rolls your way," Tiller said, "and some years it doesn't."

He's right, of course. But he doesn't have to be.

Not this year

Here's a look at who each Big Ten team won't be playing this season in conference play:

Illinois: Michigan, Minnesota

Indiana: Northwestern, Penn State

Iowa: Michigan State, Penn State

Michigan: Illinois, Purdue

Michigan State: Iowa, Wisconsin

Minnesota: Illinois, Northwestern

Northwestern: Indiana, Minn.

Ohio State: Purdue, Wisconsin.

Penn State: Indiana, Iowa

Purdue: Michigan, Ohio State

Wisconsin: MSU, Ohio State

Big Ten tiebreaker

• Head-to-head

• Overall record (including nonconference)

• Most recent to earn BCS automatic bid eliminated

Look for more expansion news from other conferences in the near future.