(09-27-2016 09:42 AM)MplsBison Wrote:  Well if this goes through, and once all bowl games are fully converted over to P5 vs P5 / G5 vs G5, there will be a precious few contests between P5 and G5 teams, anyway.

So perhaps we'll find out if that's true soon enough.


Off the top of my head, trying to think of P5/G5 rivalries played every year that both sides genuinely want to see continue:

Colorado vs Colorado St


... that might be the only one ... Maybe Miami v Cincy, if Cincy gets called up?

East Carolina - WVU and East Carolina - VT
Granted neither seem interested in playing East Carolina every year, but more like 4 to 6 years out of a decade.

Penn State - Temple
They play 3 of every 4 years and it's a 2-1 deal in favor of Penn State.

Rutgers - Temple
We have a 4 game set coming up in a couple years and it's rumored that more are on the way. Probably in a similar model to how WVU and VT play East Carolina where we play them 4 to 6 times a decade.

Notre Dame - Navy
That's not going away. Granted most of the P5 conferences treat Army, Navy, BYU as P5 anyway.

(09-27-2016 03:13 PM)brista21 Wrote:  East Carolina - WVU and East Carolina - VT
Granted neither seem interested in playing East Carolina every year, but more like 4 to 6 years out of a decade.

ECU and VT have a game every year except one until 2025.

(09-27-2016 02:43 PM)nzmorange Wrote:  

(09-24-2016 12:38 PM)RutgersGuy Wrote:  

(09-24-2016 11:22 AM)nzmorange Wrote:  

(09-24-2016 10:16 AM)MplsBison Wrote:  http://www.startribune.com/are-10-game-s...394529901/

Quote:Big Ten Network analyst Gerry DiNardo said a 10-game Big Ten schedule is “inevitable.” Gophers coach Tracy Claeys and Northwestern coach Pat Fitzgerald say they’d prefer that to this year’s nine-game schedule, with four at home and five on the road.

This is a dumb move on the B1G's part. It will allow the SEC to go to 9 w/o falling behind, which will allow the ACC to go to 9. And, the ability to have a 9 game ACC schedule solves a lot of the conference's division issues.

Want to explain why it's a dumb move? ACC going to 9 doesn't effect the B1G at all. 9 B1G games aren't keeping the ACC nor the SEC from going to 9.

It's more obvious if you actually follow collegiate sports. The SEC benchmarks against the B1G and the ACC benchmarks against the SEC.

The SEC and ACC can't match the B1G's schedule length and have the same flexibility. That's true because Iowa aside, the B1G doesn't have yearly OOC rivalry games (UGA vs GT, UF vs FSU, UL vs UK, Clemson vs S. Carolina, ND vs. 5 ACC). Since those games are H&H, the SEC/ACC would have to either not have variety in big OOC games, or they would have fewer home games and take a hit at the gate relative to their benchmark. A longer B1G schedule alleviates those pressures.

Many of the ACC's structural issues (on a division-level) are solved by a 9 game schedule because it would allow ACC teams to play each other significantly more often, thereby creating a sense of unity in the conference. Or, at the very least, it would allow for more yearly interesting cross divisional games (i.e. FSU vs GT, Clemson vs Miami, VT vs UL, Duke vs WF, UNC vs NCSU, SU vs UVA, BC vs Pitt)

Given the B1G's biggest threats/competition are the SEC and ACC, making moves that tangibly strengthen those conferences is bad for the B1G.

The primary thing that fans of individual schools want are rivalry games, meaning more conference games. If we can get the Big 12 to dissolve or at least have UT and OK leave then we can implement 4 autobids and an 8 team playoff system.

13 game schedule with 10 conf games for Big Ten, ACC and SEC can do 9 because of their OOC rivalry games. PAC can go with 9 or 10.

(09-27-2016 02:50 PM)MplsBison Wrote:  That argument only works if Big Ten goes to 10 alone.

Never happen. They wouldn't move without the PAC, at a minimum, and ideally with the Big 12 too, going to 10.

And if that happens, then the SEC is right where they are now: behind (8 vs 9).

I agree, the Big Ten won't move to 10 conference games alone. At a minimum, the Pac-12 (or another Power Conference) would need to be doing so as well. Also, it won't happen while the conference is at 14 schools. 9 conference games is plenty at 14 unless of course a 13th game is put into place.

(09-27-2016 03:17 PM)Hood-rich Wrote:  

(09-27-2016 03:13 PM)brista21 Wrote:  East Carolina - WVU and East Carolina - VT
Granted neither seem interested in playing East Carolina every year, but more like 4 to 6 years out of a decade.

ECU and VT have a game every year except one until 2025.

I stand corrected. But my original point stands that it's a P5 vs. G5 that both sides feel is important to them.

(09-26-2016 03:31 PM)Hokie Mark Wrote:  

(09-25-2016 03:16 PM)Kaplony Wrote:  Urban Meyer has lost a grand total of four games while at Ohio State. Half of them are to ACC schools.

But Kap, iirc Ohio State has only played 3 ACC teams under Meyer... You saying he's 1-2 against the ACC?



Sent from my HTC Desire 626 using CSNbbs mobile app

I'm not saying it...them's the facts.

The ACC has as many wins against Saint Urban as the entire Big Slow combined in few number of games than they have had entire seasons.

(09-27-2016 03:13 PM)Scoochpooch Wrote:  

(09-26-2016 06:42 AM)TodgeRodge Wrote:  this is the dumbest idea in the history of college football so I hope the Big 10 goes all in on it

nothing like a 14 team conference with only 98 POSSIBLE wins to spread between those 14 members and a max POSSIBLE 0.584 winning percentage to take most of your programs right into the dumpster

It would be dumb in that sense. That's why you would need to add autobid to it. Then it would be perfect.

no it would still the the dumbest idea in the history of college football (which is why the Big 10 should do it immediately) unless 10 members of the Big 10 are going to go "full aggie" and be excited to be in the Big 10 because tOUS, Michigan, MSU or perhaps one other team makes the playoff every year while their team goes 4-8 and misses a bowl game of any type

eventually this would destroy the conference so badly that most of the teams would not even be able to recruit well enough to win their two OOC games and even of they were buying in both of those games they would have the joy of paying Toledo or Akron or Ohio (of Ohio) $1.25 million to come to their stajium and smash them good before they went and got throttled by the 4 good teams in the Big 10 and then fought to not be the total Big 10 bottom feeder

(09-26-2016 11:33 AM)10thMountain Wrote:  

(09-25-2016 12:41 AM)perimeterpost Wrote:  

(09-24-2016 10:18 AM)MplsBison Wrote:  I personally think this is not only correct, but love the idea of every P5 playing 10 conf games every year. Leaves two buy games to get to the necessary 7 home games.
...

this mentality represents everything that is wrong with FBS football today. Why are 7 home games necessary? Why must they be buy games? Whats the matter, afraid of getting beat by a "lesser" opponent on the road?

P5 teams are so fragile, the idea of a level playing field freaks them out.

Let's be honest here.

What you're really upset about is that a 10 game schedule means that G5 teams will have far fewer opportunities to play a P5 school and it will never be at the G5 stadium unless the P5 team wants it to be there because P5 teams all of a sudden would only need one G5 game a year and those refusing to do a one and done deal would almost never get a P5 game.

Its all about the $$$ for you too. If it wasn't you'd stop trying to spend all that evil money you complain about and drop down to FCS and play "pure" football.

There is probably less money for G5 schools, but it also just seems extremely short-sighted for college football in general and the Big 14 in particular.

It's also about fairness. The record between P5 and G5 is often pointed out but already 95% of the games are home games for the P5 school. This would make it worse. And then pundits will be on even thinner ice when they pretend that they know who the best teams are when there are only a couple inter-conference games. I mean, it's really becoming a joke.

And, in a time of declining attendance, do you really want to increase the number of P5 schools that struggle to hit .500? Or even .300? It isn't just the G5 that usually can't compete with the top P5 schools. The bottom P5 schools can't compete with them either.

(09-27-2016 10:12 PM)NIU007 Wrote:  

(09-26-2016 11:33 AM)10thMountain Wrote:  

(09-25-2016 12:41 AM)perimeterpost Wrote:  

(09-24-2016 10:18 AM)MplsBison Wrote:  I personally think this is not only correct, but love the idea of every P5 playing 10 conf games every year. Leaves two buy games to get to the necessary 7 home games.
...

this mentality represents everything that is wrong with FBS football today. Why are 7 home games necessary? Why must they be buy games? Whats the matter, afraid of getting beat by a "lesser" opponent on the road?

P5 teams are so fragile, the idea of a level playing field freaks them out.

Let's be honest here.

What you're really upset about is that a 10 game schedule means that G5 teams will have far fewer opportunities to play a P5 school and it will never be at the G5 stadium unless the P5 team wants it to be there because P5 teams all of a sudden would only need one G5 game a year and those refusing to do a one and done deal would almost never get a P5 game.

Its all about the $$$ for you too. If it wasn't you'd stop trying to spend all that evil money you complain about and drop down to FCS and play "pure" football.

There is probably less money for G5 schools, but it also just seems extremely short-sighted for college football in general and the Big 14 in particular.

It's also about fairness. The record between P5 and G5 is often pointed out but already 95% of the games are home games for the P5 school. This would make it worse. And then pundits will be on even thinner ice when they pretend that they know who the best teams are when there are only a couple inter-conference games. I mean, it's really becoming a joke.

And, in a time of declining attendance, do you really want to increase the number of P5 schools that struggle to hit .500? Or even .300? It isn't just the G5 that usually can't compete with the top P5 schools. The bottom P5 schools can't compete with them either.

the reality is this would be GREAT for a number of G5 programs especially those in Ohio, Michigan and other close by states

players today for the most part especially top "playas" don't give a damn about academics and while they do give a damn about getting on TV so they can drop the ball a foot before the goal line like a total moron and they care about an xbox at their locker and game rooms and chill spots on campus they also happen to pay attention to WINNING

even the funnest player game room and coolest locker room and weight room is not that great when you are preparing, dressing, and practicing to get throttled and when you are chillin' after getting destroyed

and when you get a new coach every 4 years or so you have to deal with the new guy coming in and wanting to take all your toys away your Jr or Sr year because he thinks that is what is making your soft and why you are losing (it might be a little bit, but not mostly)

and how fun is that you have just settled into totally sucking and MAYBE getting an after draft invite to a team and you have just gotten in the grove of maybe getting that leisure studies degree and the new coach comes in and wants to make you work hard to lose more and without all the toys and games and fun.....he might even piss test you

so as soon as Purdue is going 1-11 to 3-9 consistently along with Minnesota, Indiana, Illinois, Rutgers, Maryland and Iowa and Wisky and Nebraska are swapping chances to be 5-7 to 7-5 players will be avoiding those programs in droves to at least go win 9 or 10 games at Toledo and Akron and Ohio (of Ohio) and CMU and the like especially if some of those come with a $1.25 million dollar check for new toys in front of a raucous crowd of 42,000 Big 10 fans at their place and a chance to drop the ball 5 yards INSIDE the end zone after a big play

(09-27-2016 03:42 PM)TodgeRodge Wrote:  

(09-27-2016 03:13 PM)Scoochpooch Wrote:  

(09-26-2016 06:42 AM)TodgeRodge Wrote:  this is the dumbest idea in the history of college football so I hope the Big 10 goes all in on it

nothing like a 14 team conference with only 98 POSSIBLE wins to spread between those 14 members and a max POSSIBLE 0.584 winning percentage to take most of your programs right into the dumpster

It would be dumb in that sense. That's why you would need to add autobid to it. Then it would be perfect.

no it would still the the dumbest idea in the history of college football (which is why the Big 10 should do it immediately) unless 10 members of the Big 10 are going to go "full aggie" and be excited to be in the Big 10 because tOUS, Michigan, MSU or perhaps one other team makes the playoff every year while their team goes 4-8 and misses a bowl game of any type

eventually this would destroy the conference so badly that most of the teams would not even be able to recruit well enough to win their two OOC games and even of they were buying in both of those games they would have the joy of paying Toledo or Akron or Ohio (of Ohio) $1.25 million to come to their stajium and smash them good before they went and got throttled by the 4 good teams in the Big 10 and then fought to not be the total Big 10 bottom feeder

Minnesota absolutely wants to go full Aggie. The OP and others have said as much. They want to play the Eastern teams more. They had played each other for decades. This isn't the Big 12 where fake rivalries exist.

Adding a 13th game seems like it would throw more fuel on the paying players/"amateurism" argument, since you could theoretically have a team that plays 13 regular season games, plus a CCG, plus two playoff games, which is pretty sizable increase in the amount of wear and tear the young men on such a team would take (and if that team happened to play Hawai'i in a given season they could possibly play 17 games). I guess the leagues would get behind it if adding another game would increase the payments from the TV partners. I don't see the B1G going to 10 games until the ACC and SEC at least go to 9 conference games, which neither will do without NCAA approval of a 13th game, if ever.

Scooch,

Again - it has nothing to do with playing more east teams. The only team in the east that Minnesota gives any f's about is Michigan. That's it. We would very gladly sign-off on never playing Penn St, Ohio St, and Mich St ever again. Sorry guys, we're just not on your level.

Granted, we'd love to get Indy, Rutgers, and Maryland on the schedule every year. Those are programs on Minnesota's level.

But of course it wouldn't work that way.

todge,

Your ridiculous troll agitations are quickly and soundly defeated by the fact that major programs like Michigan, Ohio St, etc. still recruit quite well even when they're not winning. It's called having unlimited money to hire the best head coaches in the country, having better facilities and more tradition than anyone else in the country, etc.

And then, like I already explained, the Big Ten wouldn't go it alone. So every other conference would be at the same "disadvantage".

the Big 10 needs to do this ASAP!

With the PAC and Big 12 (with 12 members)!

(09-28-2016 10:45 AM)MplsBison Wrote:  Scooch,

Again - it has nothing to do with playing more east teams. The only team in the east that Minnesota gives any f's about is Michigan. That's it. We would very gladly sign-off on never playing Penn St, Ohio St, and Mich St ever again. Sorry guys, we're just not on your level.

Granted, we'd love to get Indy, Rutgers, and Maryland on the schedule every year. Those are programs on Minnesota's level.

But of course it wouldn't work that way.

I simply refuse to believe that most Minnesota fans would feel that way. They absolutely would want to play OSU, PSU and MSU on a regular basis. Ideally Mich every year and OSU, PSU and MSU every 2 years.

We have no rivalry with those schools. No trophy.
And there aren't many MSU, OSU, PSU alumni in the cities.
And a very lopsided record. Any wonder???? They average 80k-100k fans per game. Minn gets around 40k.


Notice a complete lack of ingredients that would make for a positive experience playing those teams every year???

I'm not saying there are no naive Minnesota fans or old-timers who long for the old Big 10. But they should wake up!

It's more than just Minnesota pushing this. I remember this coming up before, and it was one of the Michigan or Indiana schools' representatives saying there was a push internally for a larger conference schedule because many/most of the schools wanted to play each other every year like they had enjoyed doing before the conference expanded. The rep, if I remember the quote, sounded like they were right there with those who wanted to make that move, and I know it wasn't a Minnesota person doing the talking (I think it was someone from Michigan or Michigan State, actually).

There is nothing new about this move to ten. The conference is trying for an either/or of that number and a thirteen-game season. This is its usual lip-service that, yes, this is still a thing to the Big Ten. Yes, they are still interested in this, and push on to do so.

Were it up to many within the Big Ten, their conference schedule would be the ten-game B1G schedule, the B1G-PAC arrangement game, and the body-bagger with the MAC. That gives schools no less than six and no more than seven home games every year. I'm somewhat convinced this is still the ideal arrangement for the entire conference.

(09-28-2016 11:17 AM)MplsBison Wrote:  We have no rivalry with those schools. No trophy.
And there aren't many MSU, OSU, PSU alumni in the cities.
And a very lopsided record. Any wonder???? They average 80k-100k fans per game. Minn gets around 40k.


Notice a complete lack of ingredients that would make for a positive experience playing those teams every year???

I'm not saying there are no naive Minnesota fans or old-timers who long for the old Big 10. But they should wake up!

Ok, Even I know that PSU-Minnesota is a trophy game. Yes, nobody takes it serious, but I would expect any true Minnesota fan to at least acknowledge that stupid old trophy exists.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Minnesot...ll_rivalry

While I personally would like to see some of these 14-school leagues go to 10 games to keep some old rivalries alive, I just don't see it happening because it will (1) eliminate the 8-home-game seasons some of these programs have and make 7-home-game seasons far more scarce, and (2) bring the overall conference winning % closer to .500, thus making their teams look worse. Some of the programs that need 3 or 4 OOC wins to get to 6 wins will be stuck, costing them bowl trips and perhaps even hurting things like ticket sales.