(08-09-2013 01:31 PM)He1nousOne Wrote:  

(08-09-2013 01:26 PM)nert Wrote:  

(08-08-2013 10:05 AM)bigblueblindness Wrote:  If any school from the Big 12 were to go to the Big 10, Kansas is the obvious first choice in every way. It fits every one of their criteria. Perhaps they would try to add Oklahoma and then a long shot at Texas, but only after adding Kansas first.

I agree - it seems to me that Kansas is the Big12 school that the Big10 would most be intersted in. The next piece to me would seem to be Virginia.

EAST: Virginia, Maryland, Rutgers, PennSt, OhioSt, UMich, MichSt, Purdue
WEST: Indiana, Illinois, NW'tern, Wisconsin, Minnesota, Iowa, Nebraska, Kansas

To understand the Big Ten is to understand just how much history the base ten institutions have with each other. Dividing them like this just wont work with them. Try to work out a schedule for a static 2 division conference and it is very ugly for that core set of programs.

Expansion is on hold for the new rules that will allow a new divisional system to better meet these kind of needs.

i know this first hand. i once made a big18 proposal on the espn b10 forums with 9 teams in each division. mizz, ku, ksu, isu, wisky, minny, UNL, nw & illini. in one of them

i basically got chased off those boards because everyone hated the notion of a division that wasnt split along the lines of original b10 teams & newcomers

(08-08-2013 02:47 PM)NJRedMan Wrote:  

(08-08-2013 01:25 PM)Bull Wrote:  

(08-08-2013 09:55 AM)LSUtah Wrote:  First of all, Texas and Oklahoma will not be going to the B1G.

In the event that Texas and Okalhoma do leave the Big-12, the P5 will consolidate into the P4. The Big-12 would cease to exist.

Everyone said that the Big East would cease to exist, but it kept repopulating, and repopulating, and repopulating. Even when the Big East ceased to be the Big East, schools kept joining (Tulsa). Even if the biggest hitters leave the Big 12, it will still be the 'Big 12', therefore schools WILL join, and it will never cease to exist. IMHO...

And FWIW, didn't BYU already turn down the Big 12? I'd agree with Cinci and BYU first.... If no BYU, a Big 12 without Texas may indeed want Houston. After Cinci, it would surely be from among BYU, BSU, USF/UCF. At the risk of being flamed, a rebuilding Big12 would probably grab the USF/UCF combo for a Florida presence and the markets. Even if it meant moving to 12. Again, IMHO...

Crimines, not another few years of realignment. Just when I thought everything would be stable for awhile.

It's funny how people say a conference wont exist. Like WVU, ISU, KSU, KU, TCU, Tech and Baylor are just going to shut it down.

Agreed, I always get a laugh off of comments like that. If you're going to say something as extreme as the conference will cease to exist, then please as least explain where the remaining teams in the conference will be going.

(08-09-2013 02:13 PM)RobUCF Wrote:  

(08-08-2013 02:47 PM)NJRedMan Wrote:  

(08-08-2013 01:25 PM)Bull Wrote:  

(08-08-2013 09:55 AM)LSUtah Wrote:  First of all, Texas and Oklahoma will not be going to the B1G.

In the event that Texas and Okalhoma do leave the Big-12, the P5 will consolidate into the P4. The Big-12 would cease to exist.

Everyone said that the Big East would cease to exist, but it kept repopulating, and repopulating, and repopulating. Even when the Big East ceased to be the Big East, schools kept joining (Tulsa). Even if the biggest hitters leave the Big 12, it will still be the 'Big 12', therefore schools WILL join, and it will never cease to exist. IMHO...

And FWIW, didn't BYU already turn down the Big 12? I'd agree with Cinci and BYU first.... If no BYU, a Big 12 without Texas may indeed want Houston. After Cinci, it would surely be from among BYU, BSU, USF/UCF. At the risk of being flamed, a rebuilding Big12 would probably grab the USF/UCF combo for a Florida presence and the markets. Even if it meant moving to 12. Again, IMHO...

Crimines, not another few years of realignment. Just when I thought everything would be stable for awhile.

It's funny how people say a conference wont exist. Like WVU, ISU, KSU, KU, TCU, Tech and Baylor are just going to shut it down.

Agreed, I always get a laugh off of comments like that. If you're going to say something as extreme as the conference will cease to exist, then please as least explain where the remaining teams in the conference will be going.

I have, many times as have others. Have even gone to great lengths to explain why all of these programs would have a home and why the home in particular. Some folks really just don't want to give any such ideas merit but to go so far as to say no one has made the attempt to explain, you aren't paying much attention.

(08-09-2013 01:31 PM)He1nousOne Wrote:  

(08-09-2013 01:26 PM)nert Wrote:  

(08-08-2013 10:05 AM)bigblueblindness Wrote:  If any school from the Big 12 were to go to the Big 10, Kansas is the obvious first choice in every way. It fits every one of their criteria. Perhaps they would try to add Oklahoma and then a long shot at Texas, but only after adding Kansas first.

I agree - it seems to me that Kansas is the Big12 school that the Big10 would most be intersted in. The next piece to me would seem to be Virginia.

EAST: Virginia, Maryland, Rutgers, PennSt, OhioSt, UMich, MichSt, Purdue
WEST: Indiana, Illinois, NW'tern, Wisconsin, Minnesota, Iowa, Nebraska, Kansas

To understand the Big Ten is to understand just how much history the base ten institutions have with each other. Dividing them like this just wont work with them. Try to work out a schedule for a static 2 division conference and it is very ugly for that core set of programs.

Expansion is on hold for the new rules that will allow a new divisional system to better meet these kind of needs.

They are already not all in the same division, so that part is really a moot point. If they wanted to stay together in one division, then they needed to not add PennSt, Nebraska, Rutgers and Maryland. That ship has sailed. Now it's just a matter of how to go from here. They have a geographic east/west split already determined for 2014 (I'm not sure which of the Indiana schools is east and which is west - but the rest is the same). This simply adds a team to each division.

(08-09-2013 12:46 PM)john01992 Wrote:  i just find it pathetic that you guys dismiss me as a troll or flamer just because you dont like what i have to say.

this is my hypothetical to the OPs hypothetical.

TCU/baylor dont have that much in common with isu/ku/ksu. this has been a shotgun marriage since 1996. if texas/ou split theres no loyalty or history to keep these schools together.

-i dont think the acc will pass again on wvu

my whole theory is that the schools will align based more on the best cultural fit than anything else

-i envision osu, ku, ksu, isu chasing the pac/sec (maybe tech gets a bid over one of those schools) or if the pac/sec says no those schools hooking up with fellow state schools such as new mexico, t-tech, csu, utah state, nevada, cincy, Memphis, arky st. then AF & byu if possible. (heck NIU & ksu could be looked at)

-smu, tulsa, baylor, & tcu have so much in common that this should be something that gets done. its pretty obvious that they are the last pickings among b12 schools. saying the sec/acc/pac is a viable option for these schools is a joke. (one baylor fan on this board made a very strong case of politics being the reason baylor got into the b12) i didnt put them with the LA schools for no reason. i did so because i think monroe/layfayette can reach a status like BSU, TCU, & did as mid majors. I recently read a great article on the growth of LA HS football. they are turning out more & more talent, per capita they are as good as texas. and the rise of LSU football & the SEC west is really making this region a football hotbed. and i think that is gonna translate to some good football success fot them in the future. (anyone here see the thread about that new facility the cajuns built). meanwhile ASU was my #10 choice and it came down to them or memphis, but i gave them the edge because asu has 2 straight bowl games (not bad for a team new to FBS), are a rival of monroe, and they recently took a gamble on michael dyer. obviously this is a program that wants to win & wants to be better and i think they can do that. however the tigers at #11 wouldnt be that bad either. (maybe in place of la tech or tulane?, if you wanna kick out both for Mem/sMiss that could work) i didnt exactly put you guys in a conference of scrubs. of your 8 new hypothetical partners 5 of them went to bowl games last year (4 of them won). and thats not a fluke considering that 5 of them also made bowls in the 2011-2012 season

It's not what you say, it is how you say it, of course. There are ways to be diplomatic on a message board.

The schools in the Big 12 have as much in common as anyother league, FWIW. Every league has a mixture of large flagship schools, secondary public universities, smaller private institutions. Geographically the Big 12 makes as much sense as any other league and historically there is a lot of commonality with the SWC and Big 8 (and even before the Big 12 was founded there was a lot of cross games between the two leagues). WVU is a cultural outlier, but that's about it.

If the Big 12 fails, it won't be because TCU or Baylor or ISU or whoever doesn't fit, or because of geography or history or WVU being on an island. It will be because the 10 team/ control your own 3rd tier rights revenue model doesn't pay as well as 14 or 16 team + conference network models, particularly for the University of Texas. All this other stuff you are talking about are head fakes, pure and simple.

(08-09-2013 03:14 PM)nert Wrote:  

(08-09-2013 01:31 PM)He1nousOne Wrote:  

(08-09-2013 01:26 PM)nert Wrote:  

(08-08-2013 10:05 AM)bigblueblindness Wrote:  If any school from the Big 12 were to go to the Big 10, Kansas is the obvious first choice in every way. It fits every one of their criteria. Perhaps they would try to add Oklahoma and then a long shot at Texas, but only after adding Kansas first.

I agree - it seems to me that Kansas is the Big12 school that the Big10 would most be intersted in. The next piece to me would seem to be Virginia.

EAST: Virginia, Maryland, Rutgers, PennSt, OhioSt, UMich, MichSt, Purdue
WEST: Indiana, Illinois, NW'tern, Wisconsin, Minnesota, Iowa, Nebraska, Kansas

To understand the Big Ten is to understand just how much history the base ten institutions have with each other. Dividing them like this just wont work with them. Try to work out a schedule for a static 2 division conference and it is very ugly for that core set of programs.

Expansion is on hold for the new rules that will allow a new divisional system to better meet these kind of needs.

They are already not all in the same division, so that part is really a moot point. If they wanted to stay together in one division, then they needed to not add PennSt, Nebraska, Rutgers and Maryland. That ship has sailed. Now it's just a matter of how to go from here. They have a geographic east/west split already determined for 2014 (I'm not sure which of the Indiana schools is east and which is west - but the rest is the same). This simply adds a team to each division.

Ahhh yes, what you say would be correct but the moves thus far make clear picture for us that the Big Ten does indeed intend to expand and expand further. Comments given to us over this period of time as well as the inherent knowledge of Big Ten values that any Big Ten person would understand, they give us an understanding of when the change would go too far.

Perhaps I need to break down the numbers for you, it appears that you havn't.

At 14 teams and two divisions with the old 8 game schedule you would have six games in division and two against the other. If you have a cross rivalry protected for everyone then there are six teams in the other division that would only be played once every six years. That is absolutely unacceptable in the Big Ten and many voices have come forward about the necessity of protecting the relationships between all of the core Big Ten schools, not just the marketed rivalries.

So, the response has been to move to a 9 game schedule. That has given us the same six games in division and three against the other division. Without cross rivals that would only lead to a four year period for home and away's. With cross rivals teams in opposing divisions still maintain a three year period for each match up. They seem to have determined that is where the line is drawn. Four years is too much, three years is ok. That is based upon factual evidence of what they found acceptable and what caused change to happen to reach a point of acceptability. I don't see how this plain to see evidence can be denied.

So what happens if the conference moves to 16 programs and tries to do a static 2 division system?

At 9 games you have the same situation that 8 games and 14 teams caused, the EXACT same situation that the Big Ten has ALREADY found unacceptable. That would mean moving to a 10 game schedule.

There IS a way around the current rules and that method is the pod method. The WAC used it. Unfortunately they failed due to inferior branding and expanding to too large of a size without any measures to hold together the conference. The Big Ten doesn't have a branding problem and it has plenty of mechanisms in place to hold the conference together. The conference could use pods in order to create two divisions that have different participants each year in order to get around this factually evident problem that previous movement has signaled as a problem.

When you use four pods interchangeably you have a schedule where you play the three teams in your particular pod every year. You then play the four teams of the other pod in your division for that year as well. That makes seven of nine games. That means two games against the other division. Don't let those two games against the other division fool you though into thinking that creates a four year timeline which has already been proved to be an issue.

If you change the pairings every year for the divisions then all you need to understand is that it constitutes a three year rotation of playing every team in the 16 team conference. That means a sixteen team conference can be ran with two divisions this way with similar results as a 14 team conference and two static divisions. The fact that this 16 team conference has the other two games against the other division is just a bonus at this point that can be used to preserve old rivalries every year.

For the laymen out there....that means a 16 team conference ran in this fashion actually runs more efficiently then what we have right now with only 14 teams. That right there is plain to see evidence that the Big Ten would want to expand to 16 in order to use a system like this. If they can control their own division in the NCAA so that they can have rules that further aid in this, then all the better!

This is why pods work until we have new rules allowing four static divisions. The above explanation is why without a doubt the Big Ten WILL use interchangeable pods that form two divisions if they have to move before they can use four divisions.

Two static divisions at 16 is already proven to be unacceptable based upon previous action. People seriously need to grasp this. It is getting annoying having to explain it still.

(08-09-2013 03:22 PM)Frog in the Kitchen Sink Wrote:  

(08-09-2013 12:46 PM)john01992 Wrote:  i just find it pathetic that you guys dismiss me as a troll or flamer just because you dont like what i have to say.

this is my hypothetical to the OPs hypothetical.

TCU/baylor dont have that much in common with isu/ku/ksu. this has been a shotgun marriage since 1996. if texas/ou split theres no loyalty or history to keep these schools together.

-i dont think the acc will pass again on wvu

my whole theory is that the schools will align based more on the best cultural fit than anything else

-i envision osu, ku, ksu, isu chasing the pac/sec (maybe tech gets a bid over one of those schools) or if the pac/sec says no those schools hooking up with fellow state schools such as new mexico, t-tech, csu, utah state, nevada, cincy, Memphis, arky st. then AF & byu if possible. (heck NIU & ksu could be looked at)

-smu, tulsa, baylor, & tcu have so much in common that this should be something that gets done. its pretty obvious that they are the last pickings among b12 schools. saying the sec/acc/pac is a viable option for these schools is a joke. (one baylor fan on this board made a very strong case of politics being the reason baylor got into the b12) i didnt put them with the LA schools for no reason. i did so because i think monroe/layfayette can reach a status like BSU, TCU, & did as mid majors. I recently read a great article on the growth of LA HS football. they are turning out more & more talent, per capita they are as good as texas. and the rise of LSU football & the SEC west is really making this region a football hotbed. and i think that is gonna translate to some good football success fot them in the future. (anyone here see the thread about that new facility the cajuns built). meanwhile ASU was my #10 choice and it came down to them or memphis, but i gave them the edge because asu has 2 straight bowl games (not bad for a team new to FBS), are a rival of monroe, and they recently took a gamble on michael dyer. obviously this is a program that wants to win & wants to be better and i think they can do that. however the tigers at #11 wouldnt be that bad either. (maybe in place of la tech or tulane?, if you wanna kick out both for Mem/sMiss that could work) i didnt exactly put you guys in a conference of scrubs. of your 8 new hypothetical partners 5 of them went to bowl games last year (4 of them won). and thats not a fluke considering that 5 of them also made bowls in the 2011-2012 season

It's not what you say, it is how you say it, of course. There are ways to be diplomatic on a message board.

The schools in the Big 12 have as much in common as anyother league, FWIW. Every league has a mixture of large flagship schools, secondary public universities, smaller private institutions. Geographically the Big 12 makes as much sense as any other league and historically there is a lot of commonality with the SWC and Big 8 (and even before the Big 12 was founded there was a lot of cross games between the two leagues). WVU is a cultural outlier, but that's about it.

If the Big 12 fails, it won't be because TCU or Baylor or ISU or whoever doesn't fit, or because of geography or history or WVU being on an island. It will be because the 10 team/ control your own 3rd tier rights revenue model doesn't pay as well as 14 or 16 team + conference network models, particularly for the University of Texas. All this other stuff you are talking about are head fakes, pure and simple.

you make good points, but you are off topic.

were not debating why the b12 fails, but if texas/oklahoma leaves what do the remaining schools do?

it has been said on this board the outside of ut/ou. the rest of the b12 isnt that much better than the mwc/aac. and i dont know about you but i tend to agree with that. the point is is that these schools will have choices and i suspect that schools like isu/tcu who have a total of 4 games between them wont be as inclined to stick around as say nw/purdue.

the other conferences can make the private/public ratio work because all those schools have relationships with each other going back decades.

but with the b12 you have the b8 schools who before 1996 some of them had very little contact with the swc schools. throw in wvu and take swc ol timer.....its hard for me to say that TCU, wvu, & isu have any sort of connection that will keep this conference together if the sh.. hits the fan. the acc is alive to day because of 1. academics 2. they have bonds between most of the school. the b12 doesnt have that and thats why i have little faith in this conference going forward.

moving forward for schools like isu baylor and such. if they are gonna join a new conference or a remodeled b12, you can guarantee that they will be looking out for themselves first. and part of what i mean by looking out for themselves is finding a group of schools that they feel the most comfortable with.

a b12 without ou/texas is down to only 6 of its original members......

(08-09-2013 03:35 PM)He1nousOne Wrote:  

(08-09-2013 03:14 PM)nert Wrote:  

(08-09-2013 01:31 PM)He1nousOne Wrote:  

(08-09-2013 01:26 PM)nert Wrote:  

(08-08-2013 10:05 AM)bigblueblindness Wrote:  If any school from the Big 12 were to go to the Big 10, Kansas is the obvious first choice in every way. It fits every one of their criteria. Perhaps they would try to add Oklahoma and then a long shot at Texas, but only after adding Kansas first.

I agree - it seems to me that Kansas is the Big12 school that the Big10 would most be intersted in. The next piece to me would seem to be Virginia.

EAST: Virginia, Maryland, Rutgers, PennSt, OhioSt, UMich, MichSt, Purdue
WEST: Indiana, Illinois, NW'tern, Wisconsin, Minnesota, Iowa, Nebraska, Kansas

To understand the Big Ten is to understand just how much history the base ten institutions have with each other. Dividing them like this just wont work with them. Try to work out a schedule for a static 2 division conference and it is very ugly for that core set of programs.

Expansion is on hold for the new rules that will allow a new divisional system to better meet these kind of needs.

They are already not all in the same division, so that part is really a moot point. If they wanted to stay together in one division, then they needed to not add PennSt, Nebraska, Rutgers and Maryland. That ship has sailed. Now it's just a matter of how to go from here. They have a geographic east/west split already determined for 2014 (I'm not sure which of the Indiana schools is east and which is west - but the rest is the same). This simply adds a team to each division.

Ahhh yes, what you say would be correct but the moves thus far make clear picture for us that the Big Ten does indeed intend to expand and expand further. Comments given to us over this period of time as well as the inherent knowledge of Big Ten values that any Big Ten person would understand, they give us an understanding of when the change would go too far.

Perhaps I need to break down the numbers for you, it appears that you havn't.

At 14 teams and two divisions with the old 8 game schedule you would have six games in division and two against the other. If you have a cross rivalry protected for everyone then there are six teams in the other division that would only be played once every six years. That is absolutely unacceptable in the Big Ten and many voices have come forward about the necessity of protecting the relationships between all of the core Big Ten schools, not just the marketed rivalries.

So, the response has been to move to a 9 game schedule. That has given us the same six games in division and three against the other division. Without cross rivals that would only lead to a four year period for home and away's. With cross rivals teams in opposing divisions still maintain a three year period for each match up. They seem to have determined that is where the line is drawn. Four years is too much, three years is ok. That is based upon factual evidence of what they found acceptable and what caused change to happen to reach a point of acceptability. I don't see how this plain to see evidence can be denied.

So what happens if the conference moves to 16 programs and tries to do a static 2 division system?

At 9 games you have the same situation that 8 games and 14 teams caused, the EXACT same situation that the Big Ten has ALREADY found unacceptable. That would mean moving to a 10 game schedule.

There IS a way around the current rules and that method is the pod method. The WAC used it. Unfortunately they failed due to inferior branding and expanding to too large of a size without any measures to hold together the conference. The Big Ten doesn't have a branding problem and it has plenty of mechanisms in place to hold the conference together. The conference could use pods in order to create two divisions that have different participants each year in order to get around this factually evident problem that previous movement has signaled as a problem.

When you use four pods interchangeably you have a schedule where you play the three teams in your particular pod every year. You then play the four teams of the other pod in your division for that year as well. That makes seven of nine games. That means two games against the other division. Don't let those two games against the other division fool you though into thinking that creates a four year timeline which has already been proved to be an issue.

If you change the pairings every year for the divisions then all you need to understand is that it constitutes a three year rotation of playing every team in the 16 team conference. That means a sixteen team conference can be ran with two divisions this way with similar results as a 14 team conference and two static divisions. The fact that this 16 team conference has the other two games against the other division is just a bonus at this point that can be used to preserve old rivalries every year.

For the laymen out there....that means a 16 team conference ran in this fashion actually runs more efficiently then what we have right now with only 14 teams. That right there is plain to see evidence that the Big Ten would want to expand to 16 in order to use a system like this. If they can control their own division in the NCAA so that they can have rules that further aid in this, then all the better!

This is why pods work until we have new rules allowing four static divisions. The above explanation is why without a doubt the Big Ten WILL use interchangeable pods that form two divisions if they have to move before they can use four divisions.

Two static divisions at 16 is already proven to be unacceptable based upon previous action. People seriously need to grasp this. It is getting annoying having to explain it still.

That's a whole lot of fiction you have in your head.

And having been born and raised in Big10 territory - and having family members that are alums at many Big10 schools; I know the Big10 mindset pretty well (your condescending tone aside).

1) I never said or implied that the Big10 does not intend to expand further. They have dropped many hints that they are still evaluating expansion. I simply said that if the core was so important - they wouldn't (or perhaps shouldn't) have expanded beyond that core. That ship has sailed.

2) Most "Big10 core" games are not immovable objects to anyone involved: fans, alums, media, no one. Would anyone miss the Iowa-MichSt game in a particular year? No, of course not. You have a few (perhaps more than some other conferences) games that fans want to be annual games: UMich-OhioSt being the most obvious. A few other in-state rivalries: UMich-MichSt, Indiana-Purdue, Illinois-NW'tern and a few smaller (smaller than the OhioSt-UMich game, that is) cross-state rivalries: Minnesota-Wisconsin, etc.

Most of the rest of the games are just conference games. For example - despite all the history of the "little brown jug" the UMich-Minnesota game isn't a big deal to anyone. OhioSt fans are not going to be upset if they don't see Illinois (or Minnesota, or NW'tern, or Purdue, or...) at least once every three years. To argue otherwise is nonsense. The Big10 had cycled these games for decades (other than a single guaranteed rivalry game for each school).

Most of the really important old rivalries are preserved with a strict east/west split (other than the Indiana-Purdue game). With a single cross-over lock - the rest is taken care of - and is perhaps a whole lot more than is necessary. For example - who on the west side do OhioSt fans just have to play every year? How about PennSt fans? MichSt fans? UMich fans? The answer: none. There isn't one team on the west side that fans of these 3-4 core (is PennSt core yet in your mind?) Big10 east schools are going to be absolutely up in arms about not playing every year - not one. Obviously Rutgers and Maryland aren't going to have issues in that department. That leaves only the Purdue-Indiana game. Run down the west division and you get similar results.

3) The biggest issue with pods is the lack of consistency in scheduling - not for the teams, but for the students and the fans. College fans expect the two years in a row format - it allows for revenge games "you got us at your place - but wait until you come to our house" etc. If your wait 3 years for the return game, the student body is a different group of students. Even "every 3 years" with your rotating pods scheme loses that aspect.

The WAC-16 was a disaster because too many teams had no relation to teams that they were being lumped in with - and the game wasn't attractive to anyone. The Big10 does not have that problem. No one worries about playing a national program simply because they don't usually play that program. No one whined when they had to play Nebraska instead of Illinois - or PennSt instead of NW'tern (the two schools they most recently had to make room on the schedule for). The trade-off was attractive. Perhaps that won't be the case with Rutgers and Maryland, but that's more of an argument to add more attractive FB programs than not to expand to 16.

4) And this statement is truly fiction: "Two static divisions at 16 is already proven to be unacceptable based upon previous action." The Big10 has no previous action concerning a conference of 16 teams. The only previous action of 16 in division 1 FB were: 1) not Big10 2) used pods (WAC-16) or 3) was a mish-mash of FB and non-FB playing schools (BigEast) where the FB side was small enough for everyone to play everyone else each year.

The rest is purely your supposition.

Wow, you cant even comprehend how it was determined that a four year period between rematches with the opposing division is too much but a three year period was acceptable.

Whatever then. Go ahead and consider common sense math as fantasy in comparison to your opinion.

The evidence is clear, as is the math. That will prove out in the end.

Also, your damn right I am going to be condescending when something so simple is too much for someone to understand.

Your response about "revenge" games would be appropriate except that the math involved with moving to 9 games instead of 8 will trump that. What you are saying is that the 10 game schedule is more preferable but that means the likelihood of having 7 home games a season is not only extremely unlikely but would have a very drastic affect upon a program's SoS if they did what would be necessary to have 7 home games as they have all come to depend upon.

Once again though, that kind of math is, in your opinion, fantasy.

(08-09-2013 10:47 AM)S11 Wrote:  

(08-09-2013 09:30 AM)john01992 Wrote:  

(08-09-2013 09:19 AM)Frog in the Kitchen Sink Wrote:  

(08-09-2013 08:59 AM)S11 Wrote:  

(08-09-2013 08:54 AM)john01992 Wrote:  i think its ridiculous TCU has a slate of iowa st. & wvu. what do those schools have in common with TCU? then you guys made the SU, toledo, buffalo comparison and thats where you guys just sound stupid

The SU & Pitt being compared to toledo, UMass, buffalo, etc comparison is no more stupid than your ULL, ULM, LaTech, and Ark State comparison for BU & TCU. Both are absurd from a fan support, success, budget, and brand comparison. It was intentionally so to point out the absurdity of your statement.

You may not have specifically said TCU or BU were on the level of Toledo/Buffalo, but your earlier comparison was pretty much the same thing.

Bingo.

I don't mind someone having a little trolling fun on a message board, but one thing I can't stand is flamers who try to backpedal and say they aren't trying to flame. There are serious message board posters, then there are flaming posters- both are entertaining for different reasons in my opinion. But flaming posters posing as serious posters are my pet peeve.

umass is a 2nd year fbs
buffalo just got back to d1 and has how many bowl wins in the last 50 years?
toledo LOL

the LA schools have more history, and are doing things currently that are giving them a lot of attention. they are on a much higher level than buffalo or umass

Whatever.

Arkansas State has little to no history.
ULM upset Arky last year but isn't more nationally known than UB was when Gill was there his last year. LaTech has had spurts but is a WAC school.

National perception wise MAC vs WAC vs Sun Belt has all been pretty equal.

In terms of brand, budget, success, and history the two comparisons are pretty valid and points to yet another attempt to slam us.

Only UL(Lafeyette) out of Louisiana and Arkansas state have any sort of argument here. UL(lafeyete) and Arkansas state are teams to keep eye on over next few years! Both have big projects breaking ground this year. Arkansas st just barely didn't get into top 25 last season.Has won 20 games over last 2 years. Only problem is they are on their 4th coach in 4 years. Freeze(now ole miss), Malzahn ( now Auburn), and now hired Bryan Harsin Texas OC. Mostly known for his OC duties at Boise st. Louisiana just made a huge investment in their facilities.

Regarding the TCU vs. Syracuse comparisons: Syracuse has historically been on of the better teams in the land if you stop counting at 2000. At this time, TCU blows them away... and they will continue to do so for a long while.

As for TX and OK bolting to the B10: I don't see it. I could see Kansas and Missouri going to the B10 in a heartbeat. After that, the PAC12 could come calling for TX, TX Tech, OK and OSU. The SEC could respond by adding WVU, TCU and Kansas State.

If this occurs and ND can stay independent, I'm not sure that the ACC responds.

This would leave Baylor and ISU alone. If this comes to fruition, these two would join the AAC, most likely with a few others (Boise State, SDSU, BYU and UNLV?).

(08-09-2013 09:13 PM)Ned Low Wrote:  Regarding the TCU vs. Syracuse comparisons: Syracuse has historically been on of the better teams in the land if you stop counting at 2000. At this time, TCU blows them away... and they will continue to do so for a long while.

As for TX and OK bolting to the B10: I don't see it. I could see Kansas and Missouri going to the B10 in a heartbeat. After that, the PAC12 could come calling for TX, TX Tech, OK and OSU. The SEC could respond by adding WVU, TCU and Kansas State.

If this occurs and ND can stay independent, I'm not sure that the ACC responds.

This would leave Baylor and ISU alone. If this comes to fruition, these two would join the AAC, most likely with a few others (Boise State, SDSU, BYU and UNLV?).

i dont think TCU is that much better than syracuse right now. the only reason syracuse doesnt get ranked is because they load their ooc with BCS teams and rack up more losses

cuse went 5-2 in BE play
tcu went 4-5 in b12 play

obviously the b12 is better than the BE, but you are talking .714 vs .444 winning % in conf play.

in BCS play syracuse went 7-5
in BCS play TCU went 5-6

thats still .538 vs .384

(08-09-2013 04:43 PM)He1nousOne Wrote:  Wow, you cant even comprehend how it was determined that a four year period between rematches with the opposing division is too much but a three year period was acceptable.

Whatever then. Go ahead and consider common sense math as fantasy in comparison to your opinion.

The evidence is clear, as is the math. That will prove out in the end.

Also, your damn right I am going to be condescending when something so simple is too much for someone to understand.

Your response about "revenge" games would be appropriate except that the math involved with moving to 9 games instead of 8 will trump that. What you are saying is that the 10 game schedule is more preferable but that means the likelihood of having 7 home games a season is not only extremely unlikely but would have a very drastic affect upon a program's SoS if they did what would be necessary to have 7 home games as they have all come to depend upon.

Once again though, that kind of math is, in your opinion, fantasy.

Yes, go ahead and skip every question I posed where the obvious answers don't support your opinion based "logic" and then pretend that I suggested a 10-game Big10 schedule if that makes you feel better.