http://www.pennlive.com/sports/index.ssf...ptics.html

Excerpt:

Quote:Population trends sometimes happen so slowly we don't notice. But college football coaches see them before anyone. They understand the job prospects and migrations of the locals because they are around every year, seeing the school enrollments, talking to the parents.

What's clear to anyone paying attention is that healthy economies bear abundant caches of college-ready athletes. Right now, that means the suburban areas in stable tech and service industries. The areas that were able to diversify and retain their populations during the emigration of America's heavy industry and manufacturing to Asia in the 1970s and '80s have continued to churn out talent.

The I-95 corridor has included all types of business. So, while certain more industrial areas have faltered some, other tech-heavy pockets have taken their places.

That's not quite as true with many semirural Midwestern and western Pennsylvania river burgs that thrived a few decades ago while depending on two or three businesses that subsequently moved their jobs overseas.

They're in pain now and their segmented populations are hemorrhaging. The old heavy industrial regions that used to run out football stars like assembly lines are being drained of youth.

If you want to know what happens when conferences aren't proactive in spreading exposure into new areas, look to the Big 12.

Rest of the article is worth reading.

What PSU, Rutgers & MD need to do is solidify what gains they have made before VA hires a HC who can turn their program around because once they do it will be a knock down drag out fight for North Carolina, Virginia, DC & Delaware talent.

The skeptics also cannot over look that Rutgers beat Michigan with Big East/American level talent last year; Maryland beat Michigan with mid level ACC talent lat year.
Rutgers also only lost to PSU by 3, Maryland also beat Iowa and Penn State. Now that each are in a conference that values football, their talent level will only get better, following seasons that were as good as anyone could expect for first seasons in the B10.

I think they both have potential for improvement, but I don't see either being superpowers anytime soon. The recruiting rankings are decent, but not steller (Maryland at #31 and Rutgers at #41 for 2016 talent on 247) and Penn State and Michigan both look to be rebounding. There's just too many teams they are directly competing with in a division with higher ceilings for the roof to be too high.

That said both teams will have their wins and their moments for sure. I don't think there is actually any inherent reason someone like Michigan State or Wisconsin is stronger and attribute that to well run athletic departments and good coaching (which admittedly can be hard to catch even for bigger schools).

(08-19-2015 10:08 AM)ohio1317 Wrote:  I think they both have potential for improvement, but I don't see either being superpowers anytime soon. The recruiting rankings are decent, but not steller (Maryland at #31 and Rutgers at #41 for 2016 talent on 247) and Penn State and Michigan both look to be rebounding. There's just too many teams they are directly competing with in a division with higher ceilings for the roof to be too high.

That said both teams will have their wins and their moments for sure. I don't think there is actually any inherent reason someone like Michigan State or Wisconsin is stronger and attribute that to well run athletic departments and good coaching (which admittedly can be hard to catch even for bigger schools).

You hit on why UM and PSU have made such giant strides in recruiting. Huge, well run athletic programs and new dynamic new coaches. Right now RU and Md are still minor league compared to that. It will take some time and some serious investment, but it can be done.

(08-19-2015 05:33 PM)mikeinsec127 Wrote:  

(08-19-2015 10:08 AM)ohio1317 Wrote:  I think they both have potential for improvement, but I don't see either being superpowers anytime soon. The recruiting rankings are decent, but not steller (Maryland at #31 and Rutgers at #41 for 2016 talent on 247) and Penn State and Michigan both look to be rebounding. There's just too many teams they are directly competing with in a division with higher ceilings for the roof to be too high.

That said both teams will have their wins and their moments for sure. I don't think there is actually any inherent reason someone like Michigan State or Wisconsin is stronger and attribute that to well run athletic departments and good coaching (which admittedly can be hard to catch even for bigger schools).

You hit on why UM and PSU have made such giant strides in recruiting. Huge, well run athletic programs and new dynamic new coaches. Right now RU and Md are still minor league compared to that. It will take some time and some serious investment, but it can be done.

The four division system will be a huge boon for The Big Ten's Eastern schools. Although, unless The Big Ten lands one more Eastern partner, you guys will probably end up in division with Ohio State still. Considering Penn State is on their way to being a powerhouse again, that could become a very tough division for Maryland and Rutgers to find strong success in.

I would love to see it happen though.

(08-19-2015 06:31 PM)He1nousOne Wrote:  

(08-19-2015 05:33 PM)mikeinsec127 Wrote:  

(08-19-2015 10:08 AM)ohio1317 Wrote:  I think they both have potential for improvement, but I don't see either being superpowers anytime soon. The recruiting rankings are decent, but not steller (Maryland at #31 and Rutgers at #41 for 2016 talent on 247) and Penn State and Michigan both look to be rebounding. There's just too many teams they are directly competing with in a division with higher ceilings for the roof to be too high.

That said both teams will have their wins and their moments for sure. I don't think there is actually any inherent reason someone like Michigan State or Wisconsin is stronger and attribute that to well run athletic departments and good coaching (which admittedly can be hard to catch even for bigger schools).

You hit on why UM and PSU have made such giant strides in recruiting. Huge, well run athletic programs and new dynamic new coaches. Right now RU and Md are still minor league compared to that. It will take some time and some serious investment, but it can be done.

The four division system will be a huge boon for The Big Ten's Eastern schools. Although, unless The Big Ten lands one more Eastern partner, you guys will probably end up in division with Ohio State still. Considering Penn State is on their way to being a powerhouse again, that could become a very tough division for Maryland and Rutgers to find strong success in.

I would love to see it happen though.

I'm not entirely sure that a 4 division system is how this goes down. I still think something uni-divisional is a big possibility and perhaps even preferred. Think of it this way at 9 conference games. You have 15 other schools (assuming 16 is coming of course.) 3 locked rivals gets you down to 12 schools and 6 games. You can literally rotate every two years and play every school home and away at least once in a 4 year span. The four division system doesn't even guarantee that.

(08-21-2015 02:57 PM)brista21 Wrote:  

(08-19-2015 06:31 PM)He1nousOne Wrote:  

(08-19-2015 05:33 PM)mikeinsec127 Wrote:  

(08-19-2015 10:08 AM)ohio1317 Wrote:  I think they both have potential for improvement, but I don't see either being superpowers anytime soon. The recruiting rankings are decent, but not steller (Maryland at #31 and Rutgers at #41 for 2016 talent on 247) and Penn State and Michigan both look to be rebounding. There's just too many teams they are directly competing with in a division with higher ceilings for the roof to be too high.

That said both teams will have their wins and their moments for sure. I don't think there is actually any inherent reason someone like Michigan State or Wisconsin is stronger and attribute that to well run athletic departments and good coaching (which admittedly can be hard to catch even for bigger schools).

You hit on why UM and PSU have made such giant strides in recruiting. Huge, well run athletic programs and new dynamic new coaches. Right now RU and Md are still minor league compared to that. It will take some time and some serious investment, but it can be done.

The four division system will be a huge boon for The Big Ten's Eastern schools. Although, unless The Big Ten lands one more Eastern partner, you guys will probably end up in division with Ohio State still. Considering Penn State is on their way to being a powerhouse again, that could become a very tough division for Maryland and Rutgers to find strong success in.

I would love to see it happen though.

I'm not entirely sure that a 4 division system is how this goes down. I still think something uni-divisional is a big possibility and perhaps even preferred. Think of it this way at 9 conference games. You have 15 other schools (assuming 16 is coming of course.) 3 locked rivals gets you down to 12 schools and 6 games. You can literally rotate every two years and play every school home and away at least once in a 4 year span. The four division system doesn't even guarantee that.

Honestly, it's not about the regular season anymore. All match ups in the Big Ten will matter more if there are two more spots in the conference post season. Divisions make more sense to general fans in order to draw them in. Divisional races at the end of the season are sure fire ways to draw attention. They are easily talked about and propagandized by Sports Talk shows.

(08-21-2015 07:37 PM)He1nousOne Wrote:  

(08-21-2015 02:57 PM)brista21 Wrote:  

(08-19-2015 06:31 PM)He1nousOne Wrote:  

(08-19-2015 05:33 PM)mikeinsec127 Wrote:  

(08-19-2015 10:08 AM)ohio1317 Wrote:  I think they both have potential for improvement, but I don't see either being superpowers anytime soon. The recruiting rankings are decent, but not steller (Maryland at #31 and Rutgers at #41 for 2016 talent on 247) and Penn State and Michigan both look to be rebounding. There's just too many teams they are directly competing with in a division with higher ceilings for the roof to be too high.

That said both teams will have their wins and their moments for sure. I don't think there is actually any inherent reason someone like Michigan State or Wisconsin is stronger and attribute that to well run athletic departments and good coaching (which admittedly can be hard to catch even for bigger schools).

You hit on why UM and PSU have made such giant strides in recruiting. Huge, well run athletic programs and new dynamic new coaches. Right now RU and Md are still minor league compared to that. It will take some time and some serious investment, but it can be done.

The four division system will be a huge boon for The Big Ten's Eastern schools. Although, unless The Big Ten lands one more Eastern partner, you guys will probably end up in division with Ohio State still. Considering Penn State is on their way to being a powerhouse again, that could become a very tough division for Maryland and Rutgers to find strong success in.

I would love to see it happen though.

I'm not entirely sure that a 4 division system is how this goes down. I still think something uni-divisional is a big possibility and perhaps even preferred. Think of it this way at 9 conference games. You have 15 other schools (assuming 16 is coming of course.) 3 locked rivals gets you down to 12 schools and 6 games. You can literally rotate every two years and play every school home and away at least once in a 4 year span. The four division system doesn't even guarantee that.

Honestly, it's not about the regular season anymore. All match ups in the Big Ten will matter more if there are two more spots in the conference post season. Divisions make more sense to general fans in order to draw them in. Divisional races at the end of the season are sure fire ways to draw attention. They are easily talked about and propagandized by Sports Talk shows.

I know we've gone back and forth on this several times, but I do disagree for a few reasons.

1. Even if we get semi-finals (something which we certainly can down the road, but I see no evidence are being pursued right now), 4 divisions I see as highly unlikely. To my knowledge, we've never seen a sport have 4 division winners and only 4 division winners make a tournament. At the very least, they'd have 3 divisions and one wild card. I just can't see college football being the only sport to go that route if otherwise they are trying to be more like the professional leagues.

2. The regular season does matter. 13/14 weeks of play, with some monster ratings for the right match-ups, matters a lot. Playoff weeks might be bigger than any current week, but if the regular season loses some of its luster, that will have a big impact on TV contracts eventually.

(08-21-2015 09:51 PM)ohio1317 Wrote:  

(08-21-2015 07:37 PM)He1nousOne Wrote:  

(08-21-2015 02:57 PM)brista21 Wrote:  

(08-19-2015 06:31 PM)He1nousOne Wrote:  

(08-19-2015 05:33 PM)mikeinsec127 Wrote:  You hit on why UM and PSU have made such giant strides in recruiting. Huge, well run athletic programs and new dynamic new coaches. Right now RU and Md are still minor league compared to that. It will take some time and some serious investment, but it can be done.

The four division system will be a huge boon for The Big Ten's Eastern schools. Although, unless The Big Ten lands one more Eastern partner, you guys will probably end up in division with Ohio State still. Considering Penn State is on their way to being a powerhouse again, that could become a very tough division for Maryland and Rutgers to find strong success in.

I would love to see it happen though.

I'm not entirely sure that a 4 division system is how this goes down. I still think something uni-divisional is a big possibility and perhaps even preferred. Think of it this way at 9 conference games. You have 15 other schools (assuming 16 is coming of course.) 3 locked rivals gets you down to 12 schools and 6 games. You can literally rotate every two years and play every school home and away at least once in a 4 year span. The four division system doesn't even guarantee that.

Honestly, it's not about the regular season anymore. All match ups in the Big Ten will matter more if there are two more spots in the conference post season. Divisions make more sense to general fans in order to draw them in. Divisional races at the end of the season are sure fire ways to draw attention. They are easily talked about and propagandized by Sports Talk shows.

I know we've gone back and forth on this several times, but I do disagree for a few reasons.

1. Even if we get semi-finals (something which we certainly can down the road, but I see no evidence are being pursued right now), 4 divisions I see as highly unlikely. To my knowledge, we've never seen a sport have 4 division winners and only 4 division winners make a tournament. At the very least, they'd have 3 divisions and one wild card. I just can't see college football being the only sport to go that route if otherwise they are trying to be more like the professional leagues.

2. The regular season does matter. 13/14 weeks of play, with some monster ratings for the right match-ups, matters a lot. Playoff weeks might be bigger than any current week, but if the regular season loses some of its luster, that will have a big impact on TV contracts eventually.

Three divisional winners and a wild card makes it less likely for the top team to actually make it through because three divisional winners and a wild card actually creates stronger competition. Fans think its all about stronger competition. It isn't, it is about control and inevitably the conferences want their best team to make it to the National show. Having a weak divisional winner go up against your top team in the first round of the conference tournament is ideal.

You are right, we disagree but sorry, your mentality is that of a fan not of a CEO that wants as much control of outcomes as possible.

I can't agree at all that mine position is more of a fan position. I know my fan position and it actually has very little to do with my long term prognosis (which is a very different outcome than I want as a fan).

A conference wants strong match-ups both for match-ups and for the best chance to move a competitor to the CFP. There will always be upsets that happen, but if they are going to happen, it looks much better to have them happen to another strong team. Let's say for example that you have a 4-5 Minnesota team win a division one year. While a 8-1 Michigan might be very likely to win that game, it looks terrible for the conference if they lose it. Further, that Minnesota team will not make the CFP. On the flip side, if they lose to 7-2 (11-2) Penn State team who finished 2nd in their division, that doesn't look as bad and Penn State might still stand a chance to get in (and Michigan might as well as their lose doesn't look at bad).

A loss is a loss in that situation. Whether its a bad loss or a "good loss" means nothing to those in power. That only matters to folks that imagine there is a difference, aka fan mentality.

(08-22-2015 12:22 AM)He1nousOne Wrote:  A loss is a loss in that situation. Whether its a bad loss or a "good loss" means nothing to those in power. That only matters to folks that imagine there is a difference, aka fan mentality.

I enjoy these discussions, but please stop telling me I have a fan mentality. That's not an argument against anything I say and from my perspective, you are the one with the fan mentality. I know that probably seems absurd to you that I think that, but it seems equally absurd to me that you think my position is.

Edit: All losses are not equal though. You can legitimately have your second best team in the conference as a wildcard. If the team who was on top losses, it's a lot better to have your second best team rise to the top than your 3rd/4th/5th. Further, if we are talking about keeping the same CFP set-up, a 12-1 Michigan State is still more likely to make the playoff if it's last loss was to a quality team than if the last thing anyone remembers was them loosing to a barely bowl eligible team.

I'm not saying there aren't arguments going the other way too, but when you factor in the above with the fact that the conference will want very high TV ratings for their final conference controlled TV event, I think the arguments from conference CEO perspective are stronger for a wildcard than not having one.

(08-22-2015 09:08 AM)ohio1317 Wrote:  

(08-22-2015 12:22 AM)He1nousOne Wrote:  A loss is a loss in that situation. Whether its a bad loss or a "good loss" means nothing to those in power. That only matters to folks that imagine there is a difference, aka fan mentality.

I enjoy these discussions, but please stop telling me I have a fan mentality. That's not an argument against anything I say and from my perspective, you are the one with the fan mentality. I know that probably seems absurd to you that I think that, but it seems equally absurd to me that you think my position is.

Edit: All losses are not equal though. You can legitimately have your second best team in the conference as a wildcard. If the team who was on top losses, it's a lot better to have your second best team rise to the top than your 3rd/4th/5th. Further, if we are talking about keeping the same CFP set-up, a 12-1 Michigan State is still more likely to make the playoff if it's last loss was to a quality team than if the last thing anyone remembers was them loosing to a barely bowl eligible team.

I'm not saying there aren't arguments going the other way too, but when you factor in the above with the fact that the conference will want very high TV ratings for their final conference controlled TV event, I think the arguments from conference CEO perspective are stronger for a wildcard than not having one.

Oh no, my perspective is quite far away from a fan perspective. The usual college football fan perspective is much more traditional. The concept of going to NO DIVISIONS is about as traditional as it gets so yes, your perspective is more of a fan perspective than mine.

That is not a slam my friend. I expect an Ohio State person to be much more attuned to the fan perspective currently than an Iowa guy, yes? I have been dealing with the business side of all this for a few years now. Hell, I don't know if I could ever go back to the fan side of things even if I wanted to.

You are creating your argument from a very generalized starting point.

There are no numbers to actually prove that having a massive conference with no divisions leads to more interest than keeping and expanding the division model. With the NFL we see how strong the rivalries build within their smaller divisions. We actually have proof of that working.

Now, if you want to argue for three divisions and a wild card then ok but once again....show me a strong example for a set up within the Big Ten that works.

I have done that with the four division model with examples of both Eastern and Western expansion.

In any case, the probability of the conference expanding again in the near future is strong, especially once other conference's GOR's expire. Getting to 16 teams is quite likely.

(08-22-2015 10:02 AM)He1nousOne Wrote:  Oh no, my perspective is quite far away from a fan perspective. The usual college football fan perspective is much more traditional. The concept of going to NO DIVISIONS is about as traditional as it gets so yes, your perspective is more of a fan perspective than mine.

That is not a slam my friend. I expect an Ohio State person to be much more attuned to the fan perspective currently than an Iowa guy, yes? I have been dealing with the business side of all this for a few years now. Hell, I don't know if I could ever go back to the fan side of things even if I wanted to.

1. I love the idea of no-divions, but I do not predict no divisions if you got semi-finals (although I don't predict semi-finals).

2. I can definitely tell you from years of personal experience that arguing for tradition is actually very against the average fan perspective. Most people I've dealt with want a bigger playoff and often bigger conferences. When I talk about liking the BCS and the pre-BCS system, I got strange looks.

Yes there are a segment of fans like myself that like tradition, but there are also a great number of fans who want everything bigger. You can be for big conferences and divisions and have a fan perspective or you can be for going back to 10 teams and have a fan perspective.

What determines if you are looking at this from a fan perspective is not what you happen to want, but if you are looking at this as the school presidents (the decision makers) perspective or your own.

Given I am in no sense predicting what I want long term, how is that coming from a fan perspective?

(08-22-2015 10:02 AM)He1nousOne Wrote:  You are creating your argument from a very generalized starting point.

There are no numbers to actually prove that having a massive conference with no divisions leads to more interest than keeping and expanding the division model. With the NFL we see how strong the rivalries build within their smaller divisions. We actually have proof of that working.

Now, if you want to argue for three divisions and a wild card then ok but once again....show me a strong example for a set up within the Big Ten that works.

I have done that with the four division model with examples of both Eastern and Western expansion.

Example of a 3 division model:

Division 1:
Penn State
Rutgers
Maryland
Wisconsin
Minnesota

Division 2:
Ohio State
Michigan
Michigan State
Indiana
Purdue

Division 3:
Oklahoma
Nebraska
Iowa
Illinois
Northwestern

You play the other 4 teams in your division, 1 locked crossover, and then 4 of the other 10 teams every year (for an average of 40% of the time). The 3 division winners and 1 wild card make the semi-finals.

(08-23-2015 03:42 PM)Policiious Wrote:  In any case, the probability of the conference expanding again in the near future is strong, especially once other conference's GOR's expire. Getting to 16 teams is quite likely.

I think it's a foregone conclusion that we end up with a very different set-up by the end of the 2020s, but I think the status quo is very strong for the time being. The different set-up though could be something like the conference selling their TV rights together though rather than another round of expansion (depending on circumstances when the grant of rights expire).

(08-21-2015 10:50 PM)He1nousOne Wrote:  [quote='ohio1317' pid='12290024' dateline='1440211908']
[quote='He1nousOne' pid='12289870' dateline='1440203828']
[quote='brista21' pid='12289330' dateline='1440187075']
[quote='He1nousOne' pid='12284532' dateline='1440027084']

You are right, we disagree but sorry, your mentality is that of a fan not of a CEO that wants as much control of outcomes as possible.

If you want to talk about control, the best option would be to keep the divisions, do away with the round robin, and rotate divisional teams on and off the schedule.

At 16, there really doesn't need to be many changes with a 9 game conference schedule. You can do 7 divisional and 2 cross divisions. Every team plays twice in 8 years. For cross divisional games, pair a top brand with a weaker brand. Now that works great especially if one (OU) or two (UT) huge brands are added out west. 16 works great with UT and OU alone but I doubt that is how it is all going to go down.

At even numbers above 16, you can still keep the divisions and just rotate off the schedule divisional teams much like the Big Ten use to do when they were at 11 teams. Let's just use 18 as the number. Have 3 cross divisional games. They can either be 3 rotations or two rotating with one yearly rival. Keep 3 rivals inside the division to play every year and rotate the other 3 games between the remaining 5. Two divisional opponents get left off every year. The Big 10 administration now has complete control over who plays who and what season so there can be more big games and harder/easier schedules to nudge teams a certain direction. There might be a tie but it's not like there haven't been ties before and then the Big 10 can choose who they want from the tie. Teams like Rutgers will actually have a shot if they don't have to go thru the entire gauntlet of the east. Same with Maryland.