I'm ok with 10 conference games IF they expand the regular season to 13 games. I believe the AD's considered 10 games before they finally decided on 9. I think this was around the time Maryland and Rutgers were added. < grabs tin foil hat and puts it on > Therefore the Big Ten must be discussing expansion to 16 teams or more. 9 games won't work. Added TV revenue. And there you go, 10 conference games.

Sent from my SM-N910V using CSNbbs mobile app

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

Oh, I know. God forbid we address the outrageous and unaccountable operational costs within college football. And, I seem to remember not more than six or seven years ago how six home games were a necessity. Now we're up to seven? We've been playing twelve games for some time, so what changed?

Schools will point to the rising costs of all athletics and the burden of Title IX. One only needs to ask how staffing, contracts, recruiting, and other operations are addressed within the sport to really know. Like, in Louisiana, with this funding issue staring the state schools square in the face: how much money is LSU on the hook for to Les Miles to remove him so soon into the season? Could that have been handled any better, really?

72-80 schools in four conferences. 10-game conference schedules. 2 OOC games, only against schools from the top-level. 1 EXHIBITION game against a lower-level opponent.

Allow conference championship semi-final games.

6-team CFP, with the 4 conference champions and 2 wild cards. Wild cards play road game at the 2 lower-ranked conference champions. The winners of those 2 games play the 2 higher-ranked conference champions in the current CFP semi-final format. Losers play in consolation NY6 bowl games.

Allow the four top-level conferences determine bowl eligibility rules. Not a big deal to let a 5-7 team play in a bowl game.

Well, I doubt the Big Ten will go to 10 without making the other P confs also go to 10.

If/when that happens, the rules will be updated -- as they should be -- to allow more teams to get the 15 extra practices and play an exhibition game in December. Not a bowl game, mind you.

(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.

I don't see this happening just because it's gonna doom some programs in the P5 leagues to pretty much never having a winning record again, and I don't think the fan bases of the "top" schools are gonna be able to tolerate when even they start losing 3-4 games per year. The places where winning anything less than 10 games a year is an epic failure aren't gonna tolerate when 8-9 wins starts becoming the norm.

They'll have to.

It works in the NFL. The NFL gets the most money and the most TV ratings.

Major college football needs to strive ever closer to the NFL, in those senses.

(09-26-2016 12:01 PM)MplsBison Wrote:  They'll have to.

It works in the NFL. The NFL gets the most money and the most TV ratings.

Major college football needs to strive ever closer to the NFL, in those senses.

It works in the NFL because it's basically accepted that it's complete parity, everyone can beat everyone, there is revenue sharing, a salary cap, and a draft to ensure that basically everyone has a relatively fair shot at improving. College is never going that way. It's possible that among the P5 maybe this reaches a point where they revenue share the TV money, but even that I highly doubt as the number of schools actually worth the astronomical values being paid are very small. There will never be any system that ensures everyone will have fair access to the same level of players. So what this would do is essentially bury the bottom of P5 leagues to never being competitive, made the middle to even upper middle basically have 5-7 losses every year, the top probably with 2-3 losses, and it will take years for fan base expectations to adjust to that. It would bury some programs to do this.

I wouldn't mind the P5 doing a collective TV deal for primary media rights.

And a draft for top high school talent, plus a capped number of undrafted signees, and tighter limits on the number of scholarships/players signed. It could work, one day.


But let's address your point. My easy answer is: what are Purdue, Wake Forrest, Vanderbilt, etc. actually going to do about it???? Leave the P5? No. So .... so what??

(09-25-2016 03:16 PM)Kaplony Wrote:  

(09-25-2016 01:31 PM)RutgersGuy Wrote:  

(09-24-2016 04:07 PM)Kaplony Wrote:  Probably the best thing for the Big Slow. Keeps them from getting exposed when they play the top level SEC & ACC schools.

Yeah because we all know how Clemson NEVER gets exposed in big time bowl games...

We don't when we play Big Slow teams.

Urban Meyer has lost a grand total of four games while at Ohio State. Half of them are to ACC schools.

And he's still won more national titles while at OSU than Dabo has.

(09-26-2016 12:21 PM)MplsBison Wrote:  I wouldn't mind the P5 doing a collective TV deal for primary media rights.

And a draft for top high school talent, plus a capped number of undrafted signees, and tighter limits on the number of scholarships/players signed. It could work, one day.


But let's address your point. My easy answer is: what are Purdue, Wake Forrest, Vanderbilt, etc. actually going to do about it???? Leave the P5? No. So .... so what??

What will they do? Vote against it that's what they'll do, and there are probably enough schools that know they'd be crushed by this move to stop it from happening. Minnesota for example doesn't want this to happen, realistically they'll never win more than 7 games in a year again if you take away basically all gimme games. It ain't just those teams you listed that would be crushed, you'd have teams like NC State, UNC, and the rest of the middle tiers of these leagues that basically win between 3-5 league games a year and schedule 3-4 wins OOC a year that would become completely irrelevant without major changes to allow a more even distribution of talent.

Minnesota does want it to happen. Go back to the OP. Their coach is on record saying he wants 10 over 9 (because of uneven home/away).

That's the point of the thread ...

(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

(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.

the P5 and G5 could split today and life in the G5 would not change a bit. But life in the P5..... their whole smoke and mirrors scam crumbles. bottom line, if the P5 could survive without the G5 they would've left them behind years ago.

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?

(09-26-2016 12:50 PM)MplsBison Wrote:  Minnesota does want it to happen. Go back to the OP. Their coach is on record saying he wants 10 over 9 (because of uneven home/away).

That's the point of the thread ...

It's tough when these movements gain any kind of momentum, especially when it's the Minnesota's or BC's of the P5 that want bigger conference schedules. And this was brought up before with the Big Ten as it was expanding, and even went back to shortly after the Nebraska acquisition. The conference knew expansion was going to put a strain on these annual rivalries. Just adding Penn State saw to that matter. Additional expansion saw it challenged further.

Yeah, Minnesota misses its yearly games it had with most of the eastern division schools. It helps Minny's bottom line because it means more Big Ten schools on the schedule that will drum up whatever interest it will up there, but for those schools who enjoy a life away from the conference, the screws are put to you.

Unfortunately, it's the fans who (as usual) lose on this one. School leaders will make nice with their colleagues and force a giant pill down fans' throats that this will make them better and happier.

It's purely 10 over 9.

My guess is coaches would probably vote for 8 -- more "easy wins" buy games. But that ship is well sailed.

(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.

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).

(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.