Pac-12 to decide whether to expand within a couple weeks
- Thread starter cyIclSoneU
- Start date
KidSilverhair
Well-Known Member
“Worked”
Only 8 conference games, plus an FCS breather mid-season … I mean, it props up their perceived records but it’s still not even-handed competition with the rest of the conference as a whole. So, no, it doesn’t “work” when you’re trying to define what a conference is. When other members of your conference only play at your place every four years (or more), that’s hardly the way to build rivalries and conference unity.
I mean, come on, which is better - playing every member of your conference (the group of like-minded, somewhat unified partners in athletics you volunteered to be a part of) every year, or only playing a few of them every year while some other schools in your conference, the collaborative group you want to work together with, only plays you once in a blue moon? Which is better for competitive purposes, getting a true measurement of how you perform or dodging an Ohio State or an LSU for multiple seasons in a row?
Last edited:
Probably to reinforce the statements they said mentioned with regards to the alliance, which talked about stability and not having future realignment.
I think its a lesser chance but it could be a little bit of a negotiating tactic with ESPN if ESPN is trying to replace the remaining 8 to avoid exit fees for OU & UT and lawsuits and get those two moved next year. Maybe the public statement of staying at 12 is meant to drive up ESPN's new contracts and/or a new conference network with ESPN.
KidSilverhair
Well-Known Member
Check it out, which is better for rivalries and conference reputation (okay, maybe “reputation” isn’t the right word … “rigor” maybe):
Big XII: 10 teams, 9 conference games means everybody plays everybody else, you get a true measure of the “best“ team in your conference
PAC-12: 12 teams, 2 divisions of 6, 5 division opponents are the same every year, you miss 2 teams in the other division every year, some of them only play at your place once in 4 years. Division winners in conference championship is a pretty good measure.
B1G/SEC: 14 teams, 2 divisions of 7. The SEC only plays 8 conference games, so each team misses FIVE teams in the other division every year. Now you’re looking at, what, seven or eight years before some teams play at your place? The schedules start to get really unbalanced with 14 teams (how many times has Iowa faced Ohio State recently?).
Going to 16 or 20 or (God help us) 24 only makes things worse, and pods don’t help. You’re still going to miss anywhere from six to over a dozen teams in your own conference every year, maybe only playing three other members consistently. That’s not a “conference” - that’s a scheduling arrangement.
Big XII: 10 teams, 9 conference games means everybody plays everybody else, you get a true measure of the “best“ team in your conference
PAC-12: 12 teams, 2 divisions of 6, 5 division opponents are the same every year, you miss 2 teams in the other division every year, some of them only play at your place once in 4 years. Division winners in conference championship is a pretty good measure.
B1G/SEC: 14 teams, 2 divisions of 7. The SEC only plays 8 conference games, so each team misses FIVE teams in the other division every year. Now you’re looking at, what, seven or eight years before some teams play at your place? The schedules start to get really unbalanced with 14 teams (how many times has Iowa faced Ohio State recently?).
Going to 16 or 20 or (God help us) 24 only makes things worse, and pods don’t help. You’re still going to miss anywhere from six to over a dozen teams in your own conference every year, maybe only playing three other members consistently. That’s not a “conference” - that’s a scheduling arrangement.
I don’t think anyone’s arguing with that thought process but it’s not financially possible for the Big 12 to add someone realistic to the conference.. If it was we’d already have added them.
KidSilverhair
Well-Known Member
Oh, yeah, I’m just talking sbout theory here. My perfect CFB world would have 7 conferences of 10 members and an 8-team playoff (conference champs plus one at-large).
I know it’ll never come to pass, because, you know, greed and all, but still …
It looks like we’re very possibly heading towards multiple 16-team conferences, which means your division is now your new ”conference” and you get to see the teams on the other side once or twice in a generation.
Personally, I prefer 8 teams or 16. 12 or 14 is dumb since it ends up with lopsided schedules with the other division and lots of missed opponents. 10 is ok but boring as there's very limited opportunity for novel matchups out of conference with 9 conference games.
If I ran the world, 16 team conferences with 8 team divisions. For football: 7 division games, 2 division crossover games, 1 or 2 other power conference matchups. 8 team conferences would be great for football but there's some benefit of having 16 teams for tv distribution, basketball, and Olympic sports.
I agree with much of what you say, except that last sentence.
If ISU is not in the Big10, Pac12 or some reformulated Big12, we will be at a different tier of football. But we will not be dead.
If ISU is left out, so will at least a handful of the other B12/8. So at worst ISU football would be in a conference between Big10,/Pac12/ACC/SEC and MWC/AAC. If there is a Big12 in a few years it would be the 8 plus a couple other strong media rights players (e.g. BYU, Army, Cincinnati). By rolling the Big12 remnants into an AAC or MWC it just waters down the Big12 schools value. The biggest limitation to a reformulated Big12 is the GOR for AAC or MWC schools. I believe the MWC TV Contract is up middle of this decade- so those teams might have the easiest out. But independents like BYU, UConn & Army would have greatest flexibility.
From a MBB, WBB and other Olympic sports we could compete at a level similar to today. If Gonzaga, Butler, Creighton and Villanova can make it work in MBB- then ISU could be an NCAA Tournament team.
Just curious. What would a confident statement look like?
The reality is the Big12 as we know it is done. The Big12 schools will either be absorbed by the Big10, Pac12, ACC or SEC. Or the Big12 will reformulate with a few independents or G5 elites.
Btw - I agree with you.
It has "worked" for them because the current system rewards what they have done.......it also doesn't hurt to collude/have tortious interference with ESPN, ou, UT and the AAC in the process. Bill Synder was a great coach, but he avoided pre season competition as a design because it "worked" for them......and it did.
CycloneErik
Well-Known Member
I would willing to bet, part of the Alliance's agenda is require that teams play 10 games against ACC, SEC, Big10, Pac12 or Big12 opponents.
If the SEC wants to dominate CFB, then they can knock each other off by playing 9 or 10 SEC games. If I were ESPN, I would make that a requirement of the SEC schools cashing those "really big checks".
If the SEC wants to dominate CFB, then they can knock each other off by playing 9 or 10 SEC games. If I were ESPN, I would make that a requirement of the SEC schools cashing those "really big checks".
I've been watching a little SEC network, it's pretty funny watching them downplaying the alliance thing. Chiz was on and basically said it will have no effect on the SEC at all.
Paul 'Don't call me elephant ears' Finebaum doesn't like the the Alliance at all. He believes it is all about controlling the SEC from dominating the playoff.
Lol. Tell that to ESPN when they find themselves having to bid on CFP broadcast rights that they thought they already had locked up.
Not to mention the fact that the sexy non-con matchups for the SEC eventually will dry up.
Exactly. Chiz was trying to say that the scheduling alliance doesn't mean much because schedules are created so far out. Not the sharpest cheeze in the fridge.
In my humble opinion... This whole scheduling alliance could be as simple as all three conferences agreed to no longer play OOC games against the SEC. Simple.
Everybody is throwing out these "schedule this POD" or this "POD and... crossover games"... pfffttt... Could be as mundane as "no SEC" games? Agreed? Yep. Done. Bang the gavel.
Edit to add.... If my smooth brain is close to correct, it would make sense NOT to invite the B12 to the alliance since there are still two teams in the B12 that are leaving to go SEC.
Last edited:
