I think that's why teams like Texas want to keep it. Makes it real hard for the little guys to gain ground.
*****The Super, Mega, Huge Big 12 Expansion Thread*****
- Thread starter CloneFan4
- Start date
- Status
I think that's why teams like Texas want to keep it. Makes it real hard for the little guys to gain ground.
The networks are demanding the 9 game conference schedules. Those schedules guarantee more quality inventory for the networks. It's why the B10 is going to it as it will push more premium conference games to BTN.
The only scenario where a conference might consider cutting back from 9 to 8 conference games would be to appease ND's scheduling obligations. If the B12 expands to 12, they will likely stick with 9 conference games.
It appears to me the B12 wants to stay away from poaching current Big East members, for now, which is why TCU or BYU will be added as the 10th school to replace A&M. It appears the only way the B12 will expand beyond 10 is if Notre Dame or Arkansas are somehow involved.
I don't like this because you either don't get the immediate return game from those two teams (home and home) or a class will never get to play some teams during their college career. Does it really make sense to be in a conference with someone and never play them? With a 12 team format at least every class gets to play home and away with every conference foe at least once.
S. Carolina suggests SEC caps expansion at 14. But you think one president can stand up to Slive? NO. Slive is far more powerful than any university presidents because his goal is to bring in money.
S.C. president: Cap SEC expansion at 14 teams - NCAA Football - CBSSports.com
S.C. president: Cap SEC expansion at 14 teams - NCAA Football - CBSSports.com
As for the number of teams, I would still like to know if there are any outside influences pushing conferences toward the "superconference" size. If we know that at some time in the future we need to be in a superconference in order to fully participate in revenue or play-off opportunities, size does matter. A smaller conference is more easily made fodder for the larger coferences which would only need to add a couple. If we're at 9 or 10, we'd have to pick up 6 or 7 worthy teams on short notice. The current BCS deal expires in 2014 - is this the 2012 of conferences as we know them?
If we need to be in a larger conference, now might be a good time for us to explore a new conference, possibly without UT/OU if necessary. Do this on our time table rather than being on the precipice in a couple of year.
If we need to be in a larger conference, now might be a good time for us to explore a new conference, possibly without UT/OU if necessary. Do this on our time table rather than being on the precipice in a couple of year.
What do you think they've been doing, and which bigger conference would you have us go to?
This is where people are wrong. Slive has no power if the majority of the conference disagrees with him. He can't stop a vote.
I think it has become obvious that ESPN is pushing for the Sixteen Team Super Conferences. Motivation is probably simplifying the content distribution and promoting a playoff system. More $$$$$. Also, the four sixteen team conferences would form a cohesive group that could leave the NCAA turning College Football into a Professional Sport or Minor league for NFL. That's my conspiracy theory for the day.
How often do you hear ESPN promote the Super Conference? Have you ever heard a President or Chancellor comment on it? College sports are supposed to be about more than money, but ESPN portrays it solely as a business. I am getting very cynical about what ESPN chooses to air, and the motivation.
How often do you hear ESPN promote the Super Conference? Have you ever heard a President or Chancellor comment on it? College sports are supposed to be about more than money, but ESPN portrays it solely as a business. I am getting very cynical about what ESPN chooses to air, and the motivation.
I'm not targeting anyone here with the following comments, moreso the media than anything. But here's my thoughts:
The 16 team superconference 'desire' by the media is because they are all terrible at math. They want a dumbed down system that they can understand. As long as all teams are a power of two... they can do the math themselves to create a bracket. That said... in football... there is no need for it. 4 '16 team conferences' would require 6 weeks to filter down from 64 teams to a champion. And they're not going to replace March Madness with the Superconference system.
In all honesty... what makes even numbered conferences better than odd? I'd argue 9 is better than 10. 8 Conference games in football, 16 in basketball and with everybody playing everybody the same number of times its much easier to rank within your conference. I would think the perfect system given the number of number of schools we have would be 8 '9 team' conferences.
I understand that the benefit of 14 over 13 is it allows you to split into two equal sized divisions... but 14 isn't really that good for scheduling. And 16, while great for basketball... isn't inherently anything special for football compared to 12, 10, 9, or 8.
Heck... I could see a combination of 15 and 10 team conferences throughout the country working better for football. A 16 team (4 weeks) playoff system... an automatic qualifier to the playoffs for every 5 teams in your AQ conference. Allows for 80 teams to be in AQ conferences... and while we're not quite at 80 right now... it allows for a couple of at large bids from non-AQ conferences.
The point is... there are other options that can still allow for a 'fair' system... besides 16 team conferences. And even numbered conferences are not 'always' better than odd numbered conferences. It's just the people who have the loudest voices can't seem to understand anything beyond 16 team conferences... and don't understand the downfalls to such conferences either.
The 16 team superconference 'desire' by the media is because they are all terrible at math. They want a dumbed down system that they can understand. As long as all teams are a power of two... they can do the math themselves to create a bracket. That said... in football... there is no need for it. 4 '16 team conferences' would require 6 weeks to filter down from 64 teams to a champion. And they're not going to replace March Madness with the Superconference system.
In all honesty... what makes even numbered conferences better than odd? I'd argue 9 is better than 10. 8 Conference games in football, 16 in basketball and with everybody playing everybody the same number of times its much easier to rank within your conference. I would think the perfect system given the number of number of schools we have would be 8 '9 team' conferences.
I understand that the benefit of 14 over 13 is it allows you to split into two equal sized divisions... but 14 isn't really that good for scheduling. And 16, while great for basketball... isn't inherently anything special for football compared to 12, 10, 9, or 8.
Heck... I could see a combination of 15 and 10 team conferences throughout the country working better for football. A 16 team (4 weeks) playoff system... an automatic qualifier to the playoffs for every 5 teams in your AQ conference. Allows for 80 teams to be in AQ conferences... and while we're not quite at 80 right now... it allows for a couple of at large bids from non-AQ conferences.
The point is... there are other options that can still allow for a 'fair' system... besides 16 team conferences. And even numbered conferences are not 'always' better than odd numbered conferences. It's just the people who have the loudest voices can't seem to understand anything beyond 16 team conferences... and don't understand the downfalls to such conferences either.
I just want them to figure it out this weekend and get new teams because my NCAA ps3 season is drawing to an end and I want the new teams re-aligned!
So you would have teams in the conference that you would go for 4 years without playing?
16 is just much cleaner.
With 16, if you have 2 divisions you're going to have the same thing (if not worse), and with pods you'll only have 3 teams that you play every year. Everyone else would be 2 on, 2 off.
I don't mind the 9 conference game schedule to be honest. I'm not a fan of scheduling patsies to get to 6 wins.
Well, you wouldn't have to do 2 on 2 off, you could alternate every year. Personally, i think the 16 team pod system is much better than having teams that you go 4 years without playing. JMHO though.
I don't think that is a position Iowa State can afford to take right now. We already have a very good FCS team (UNI) on our schedule most years and a BCS team (Iowa) on our schedule already. Nothing wrong with having two cupcakes rather than one to get another win and help us go bowling.
Heck, look at the conversation about realignment recently. K-State got a bunch of mentions about having been good at football in the 90s. How did they get that reputation? By beating the **** out of crappy teams to pad their record.
Yep. Texas Tech last year would be another great example. We beat them, we finished with the same conference record (3-5), we were the better team. But Tech went to a bowl game because they played SMU, New Mexico, Weber State, and Houston and finished 7-5 since they were able to go 4-0 against an easy schedule, we stayed home because we set up a schedule with Iowa and Utah.
At a glance, who do people view as having the more successful team last year? Tech, because they made a bowl game and we stayed home.
If we were to move back to a 4 non-conference game schedule, I hope a requirement for one game be against another AQ conference team. Will not happen but that could help with the Tech situation.
Yeah, i think that would be a good call. In fact, if we went to an 8 game schedule again the networks would probably require at least a best effort to make it happen.
Today:
I want OSU to whomp A&M.
I want OU to whomp MU.
MU is playing the PR game now in the Big 12, not agreeing to the TV rights 6 year deal, according to news reports, thinking that the SEC is their ticket to more money, wherever they end up, thinking they can be OU and pit the Big 12 against the SEC, and visa versa. MU is acting like they don't want to be to be a wallflower, to quote Boren. That approach is an old tactic. MU isn't original, in any regard.
Why do the sportswriters place MU ahead of ISU in the TV ratings game? The network coverage in MO is not larger than the ISU coverage in DSM, Minneapolis, KC, the Quad Cities and Omaha. ISU doesn't compete against pro teams. MU does and the pro teams are the big winners in MO.
Look at the unoccupied seats at MU basketball games starting up in November. Compare those empty seats to the occupied seats in Hilton. It's not even a comparison.
Look at MU women's basketball attendance. That's a laugher.
I want OSU to whomp A&M.
I want OU to whomp MU.
MU is playing the PR game now in the Big 12, not agreeing to the TV rights 6 year deal, according to news reports, thinking that the SEC is their ticket to more money, wherever they end up, thinking they can be OU and pit the Big 12 against the SEC, and visa versa. MU is acting like they don't want to be to be a wallflower, to quote Boren. That approach is an old tactic. MU isn't original, in any regard.
Why do the sportswriters place MU ahead of ISU in the TV ratings game? The network coverage in MO is not larger than the ISU coverage in DSM, Minneapolis, KC, the Quad Cities and Omaha. ISU doesn't compete against pro teams. MU does and the pro teams are the big winners in MO.
Look at the unoccupied seats at MU basketball games starting up in November. Compare those empty seats to the occupied seats in Hilton. It's not even a comparison.
Look at MU women's basketball attendance. That's a laugher.
- Status
