Big Ten discussed adding five Big 12 teams in 2010 and forming a 16-team league

[Lone Clone]

Super conference also won't happen. B1G and SEC have a money lead over the others, they have zero reason to bring PAC/ACC/b12 up to their level.

I've given up trying to guess what's going to happen. The BiG adding Rutgers and Maryland was nuts except to bean counters.....who run everything these days, it seems.

Even if they go to three or four super conferences, they won't really be conferences. IMHO, a conference is a bunch of schools where everybody plays everybody else. Once you get past that, you've lost a lot, and the further past it you go, the more you lose. A super conference would actually be a coalition of small conferences with structured inter-conference play.

 

[moxyfruvous]

I've given up trying to guess what's going to happen. The BiG adding Rutgers and Maryland was nuts except to bean counters.....who run everything these days, it seems.

Even if they go to three or four super conferences, they won't really be conferences. IMHO, a conference is a bunch of schools where everybody plays everybody else. Once you get past that, you've lost a lot, and the further past it you go, the more you lose. A super conference would actually be a coalition of small conferences with structured inter-conference play.

I call them "Contrivences" since their only purpose is to generate money. I prefer the old model where conferences had cultural and educational similarities and you played everyone. Fewer games interest me anymore.

BTW...hard to imagine the state legislatures of Kansas & Oklahoma allowing an thing to happen that would leave KSU & Okie-State dangling.

 

[Lone Clone]

I call them "Contrivences" since their only purpose is to generate money. I prefer the old model where conferences had cultural and educational similarities and you played everyone. Fewer games interest me anymore.

BTW...hard to imagine the state legislatures of Kansas & Oklahoma allowing an thing to happen that would leave KSU & Okie-State dangling.

If we're talking about the BiG poaching OU and KU, we have to consider whether the conference is still claiming academics matter. The presence of Nebraska would indicate this is no longer the case. If it does matter, KSU and OSU would be a real stretch. Not that they aren't decent schools, but they aren't research-oriented.

 

[5Fan5]

I've given up trying to guess what's going to happen. The BiG adding Rutgers and Maryland was nuts except to bean counters.....who run everything these days, it seems.

Even if they go to three or four super conferences, they won't really be conferences. IMHO, a conference is a bunch of schools where everybody plays everybody else. Once you get past that, you've lost a lot, and the further past it you go, the more you lose. A super conference would actually be a coalition of small conferences with structured inter-conference play.

My, how some people change their tune (about as often as they likely change their socks.)

Back in the not-so-long ago days of the true big xii (1996-2010) all that was heard was how superior it was to have divisional football with the championship being determined by a game between the two division champs. Some (pay close attention, LC) even went as far to state that such a system assured that the two best teams in the conference played for the league crown! When that fallacy was quickly laid to rest, the very same individual tried to amend his argument to '... two of the best two or three teams in the conference' which also was not accurate.

Now that the big xii finds itself with only ten remaining members, a true conference is only one where every one plays every other team thereby determining the only real champion (and one, evidently not worthy of being included in the inaugural major college championship playoff!)

(But, according to said poster, he is rarely, if ever wrong.)

Carry on, LC. You always do.

 

[89and91]

My, how some people change their tune (about as often as they likely change their socks.)

Back in the not-so-long ago days of the true big xii (1996-2010) all that was heard was how superior it was to have divisional football with the championship being determined by a game between the two division champs. Some (pay close attention, LC) even went as far to state that such a system assured that the two best teams in the conference played for the league crown! When that fallacy was quickly laid to rest, the very same individual tried to amend his argument to '... two of the best two or three teams in the conference' which also was not accurate.

Now that the big xii finds itself with only ten remaining members, a true conference is only one where every one plays every other team thereby determining the only real champion (and one, evidently not worthy of being included in the inaugural major college championship playoff!)

(But, according to said poster, he is rarely, if ever wrong.)

Carry on, LC. You always do.

Will the "One True Champion" ads run again this year? No one will laugh really. If they don't why would that be?

LC has been telling the world how it really is for the last 80,000+ posts. It is like a train wreck you see coming but just can't look away.

 

[iahawkeyes17]

Will the "One True Champion" ads run again this year? No one will laugh really. If they don't why would that be?

LC has been telling the world how it really is for the last 80,000+ posts. It is like a train wreck you see coming but just can't look away.

Slogan this year is "Every game matters". Guess after last seasons debacle had to switch it up. But as this article points out they basically copied the college playoff slogan from last season.

http://www.sbnation.com/college-football/2015/7/20/9003133/big-12s-slogan

 

[Alum-Ni]

I call them "Contrivences" since their only purpose is to generate money. I prefer the old model where conferences had cultural and educational similarities and you played everyone. Fewer games interest me anymore.

BTW...hard to imagine the state legislatures of Kansas & Oklahoma allowing an thing to happen that would leave KSU & Okie-State dangling.

Back in 2010-11 KU said they'd like to take KSU along with them, but if they had to split in order to make sure KU had a place in a major conference, they would do just that.

I don't think the Kansas and Oklahoma schools are tied together as much as most people think

 

[OtayLake Hawkeye]

If we're talking about the BiG poaching OU and KU, we have to consider whether the conference is still claiming academics matter. The presence of Nebraska would indicate this is no longer the case. If it does matter, KSU and OSU would be a real stretch. Not that they aren't decent schools, but they aren't research-oriented.

When Nebraska was added they were a member of AAU, then lost it due to how it classifies its Medical Center and how USDA research money is factored. Thus academics did matter when they were invited and accepted. I would assume this still would hold true. Of the Big12, only Kansas, Iowa State and Texas are members of AAU.

 

[Lone Clone]

My, how some people change their tune (about as often as they likely change their socks.)

Back in the not-so-long ago days of the true big xii (1996-2010) all that was heard was how superior it was to have divisional football with the championship being determined by a game between the two division champs. Some (pay close attention, LC) even went as far to state that such a system assured that the two best teams in the conference played for the league crown! When that fallacy was quickly laid to rest, the very same individual tried to amend his argument to '... two of the best two or three teams in the conference' which also was not accurate.

Now that the big xii finds itself with only ten remaining members, a true conference is only one where every one plays every other team thereby determining the only real champion (and one, evidently not worthy of being included in the inaugural major college championship playoff!)

(But, according to said poster, he is rarely, if ever wrong.)

Carry on, LC. You always do.

I realize some people said that in those days. I was not among them.

I said then, as I say now, that they were wrong. I have always maintained that conferences should be small enough to play a full round-robin. I was singing that tune back when the Big Eight and the Big Ten actually had the number of members their names would indicate. In those days, the ideal size for a conference was 8, which allowed a round-robin and four non-conference games. I was critical of the Big Ten then for not playing a round-robin.

 

[Lone Clone]

When Nebraska was added they were a member of AAU, then lost it due to how it classifies its Medical Center and how USDA research money is factored. Thus academics did matter when they were invited and accepted. I would assume this still would hold true. Of the Big12, only Kansas, Iowa State and Texas are members of AAU.

It was no secret that Nebraska's membership in the AAU was extremely tentative when the Big Ten courted the Huskers.

 

[5Fan5]

I realize some people said that in those days. I was not among them.

I said then, as I say now, that they were wrong. I have always maintained that conferences should be small enough to play a full round-robin. I was singing that tune back when the Big Eight and the Big Ten actually had the number of members their names would indicate. In those days, the ideal size for a conference was 8, which allowed a round-robin and four non-conference games. I was critical of the Big Ten then for not playing a round-robin.

Take your tired, worn out schtick back to wherever it might be that someone gives a hoot... no one here is buying it.

That "someone" you refer to was YOU. Although there is no way to prove anything at this time, my memory is and has been much better than yours. The phrases used were as close to verbatim as possible given the lapse of a few years now.

Think about it for just a moment. Is it your method to spout something on a message board (witness over 80,000 posts) in defense of isu/big xii or are you this person of truth, reason and accuracy that you want others to believe?

You said, at the time others were questioning the merits of divisional football, that a championship game was the best method available because it pitted the two best teams from the big xii (as opposed to say two teams going undefeated through conference play and being duly recognized as co-champions, let's say). Then, when it was successfully argued that indeed the two best teams could both play in the same (south) division, you changed your claim to two of the best two or three teams and even that was later shown to be faulty.

Just an FYI... in 1995 (the year prior to the inception of the mighty big xii) Iowa scheduled and played eleven regular season games, not twelve as someone is mistakenly trying to state now. That included just three non-con games. Care to tell us how it was that the big 8 was scheduling that extra game each year?

 

[Lone Clone]

Take your tired, worn out schtick back to wherever it might be that someone gives a hoot... no one here is buying it.

That "someone" you refer to was YOU. Although there is no way to prove anything at this time, my memory is and has been much better than yours. The phrases used were as close to verbatim as possible given the lapse of a few years now.

Think about it for just a moment. Is it your method to spout something on a message board (witness over 80,000 posts) in defense of isu/big xii or are you this person of truth, reason and accuracy that you want others to believe?

You said, at the time others were questioning the merits of divisional football, that a championship game was the best method available because it pitted the two best teams from the big xii (as opposed to say two teams going undefeated through conference play and being duly recognized as co-champions, let's say). Then, when it was successfully argued that indeed the two best teams could both play in the same (south) division, you changed your claim to two of the best two or three teams and even that was later shown to be faulty.

Just an FYI... in 1995 (the year prior to the inception of the mighty big xii) Iowa scheduled and played eleven regular season games, not twelve as someone is mistakenly trying to state now. That included just three non-con games. Care to tell us how it was that the big 8 was scheduling that extra game each year?

I have no idea what you're talking about in your final comment, unless you're demonstrating a problem with math. In the Big 8, everybody played everybody else and 4 non-conference game. That's 11 games.

You're just incorrect about my earlier comments. I've favored a round-robin forever. I've been in numerous arguments with Iowa/Big Ten fans on the subject over the course of 40+ years.

I would never have said that a divisional system pitted the two best teams against each other, because that obviously isn't the case. What I DID say was that under the divisional system a team cannot claim to be champion without playing the second-best team, which is just as obviously true. If the two best teams are in different divisions, they play in the title game. If they are in the same division, they play during the year.

Also, you -- once again -- are either intentionally misrepresenting the situation or just can't remember it. The discussion I think you are citing was not the one we're having now, because neither of the alternatives being discussed was a round-robin. We were talking about the relative merits of the divisional system used by the Big XII in those days and the system used by the Big Ten, where there was neither a round-robin nor a championship game.

If my schtick is correcting your mistakes, I'm sorry you're getting tired of it.

 

[icu81222]

There is no way Nebraska (or any other B1G/SEC/PAC12 team) is going to the Big 12. I would love for the B1G to grab OU (and Okie Lite if its a package deal). Unfortunately, when it all shakes out, I bet OU and Texas ride together (and OSU on their heels). I think KSU and Kansas may be the teams that are picked up (KSU would have more work to do than OU in academics, those guys allow anybody on their team). Iowa State will get left in the cold. They make sense geographically and for your rivalry, but they do not bring any money/TV sets.

I think this makes some sense.

I'd say KU and KSU to get to 14 teams and then the other 2 would have to come from the east.

Ideally, PITT would be a good fit IMO. After that? Maybe Syracuse or Virginia.

 

[Lone Clone]

I think this makes some sense.

I'd say KU and KSU to get to 14 teams and then the other 2 would have to come from the east.

Ideally, PITT would be a good fit IMO. After that? Maybe Syracuse or Virginia.

The BiG isn't going to take Kansas State.

 

[icu81222]

The BiG isn't going to take Kansas State.

Good point. Missouri would have made sense but that won't happen now.

No way iowa would let ISU in. Not a fit anyway. Maybe OU but that is probably not likely.

 

[Lone Clone]

Good point. Missouri would have made sense but that won't happen now.

No way iowa would let ISU in. Not a fit anyway. Maybe OU but that is probably not likely.

Iowa wouldn't block ISU. And ISU is a good fit. State school, AAU member, geographically appropriate, larger enrollment than several current members, comparable athletics facilities. A division with Iowa, Iowa State, Nebraska, Minnesota, Wisconsin, Illinois and Northwestern obviously makes great sense.

But being a good fit and bringing something to the conference are two entirely separate breeds of cat. I can't think of any specific thing Iowa State would bring to the BiG except a couple of rivalries, and one of them (Nebraska) is a rivalry only by some limited definitions.

It comes down to television sets. ISU doesn't add any to the BiG. End of story.

 

[iahawkeyes17]

Iowa wouldn't block ISU. And ISU is a good fit. State school, AAU member, geographically appropriate, larger enrollment than several current members, comparable athletics facilities. A division with Iowa, Iowa State, Nebraska, Minnesota, Wisconsin, Illinois and Northwestern obviously makes great sense.

But being a good fit and bringing something to the conference are two entirely separate breeds of cat. I can't think of any specific thing Iowa State would bring to the BiG except a couple of rivalries, and one of them (Nebraska) is a rivalry only by some limited definitions.

It comes down to television sets. ISU doesn't add any to the BiG. End of story.

With Nebraska addition we know now AAU importance means not as much. Addition of Rutgers and Maryland tells us Delaney is all about expanding TV market. If they were to add 2 more ISU would not be any where close. Adds nothing geographically, football is king with sports and they are a cellar dweller team. With realignment conferences have proven rivalries take a back seat so that wouldn't help them either.

There was a reason for concern few years ago with the talk of 4 super conferences with the big 12 disbanding and ISU being one of the few schools that could have gotten the short end of the stick and end up in one of the lesser conferences.

 

[GretnaShawn]

With Nebraska addition we know now AAU importance means not as much. Addition of Rutgers and Maryland tells us Delaney is all about expanding TV market. If they were to add 2 more ISU would not be any where close. Adds nothing geographically, football is king with sports and they are a cellar dweller team. With realignment conferences have proven rivalries take a back seat so that wouldn't help them either.

There was a reason for concern few years ago with the talk of 4 super conferences with the big 12 disbanding and ISU being one of the few schools that could have gotten the short end of the stick and end up in one of the lesser conferences.

Exactly, ISU brings very little to the table. IMO, the best 'get' the B1G could get is Oklahoma. Pair them with either KU, KSU, or Okie Lite and you have a winner.

I agree that KSU probably won't get the invite because their academics are so poor. Kansas brings a basketball power, but their football program is one of the worst in the P5. They will be lucky to win more than a game or two. Okie Lite won't make anybody overly excited, they are middle of the road to good enough in sports, but getting Oklahoma would be huge. I would be more than happy to take a 'lower tier' option if it meant the B1G grabbed OU.

 

[Lone Clone]

Exactly, ISU brings very little to the table. IMO, the best 'get' the B1G could get is Oklahoma. Pair them with either KU, KSU, or Okie Lite and you have a winner.

I agree that KSU probably won't get the invite because their academics are so poor. Kansas brings a basketball power, but their football program is one of the worst in the P5. They will be lucky to win more than a game or two. Okie Lite won't make anybody overly excited, they are middle of the road to good enough in sports, but getting Oklahoma would be huge. I would be more than happy to take a 'lower tier' option if it meant the B1G grabbed OU.

You're assuming Texas is out of the picture, I guess.

The advantages of a "super conference" are TV revenues and recruiting territory. The first of these two factors has driven every reorganization in the NCAA since the Big Ten added Penn State.

The disadvantages are scheduling parity, travel, a lack of natural rivalries and a lack of a sense of "family" or whatever you want to call it. So far, none of those has been enough to outweigh the money.

I don't doubt that Nebraska fans, given the choice, would approve the move to the BiG again. However, I know enough of them, and read enough of their conversations, to know they are disappointed in some respects compared to expectations, and they unquestionably miss the one-day drive opportunities that were afforded by Colorado, Missouri, Iowa State and the two Kansas schools.

You only have to read this board to know that a significant number of Hawkeye fans preferred playing Wisconsin, Minnesota, Illinois, and even Ohio State and the Michigan schools on an annual or nearly annual basis.

Iowa State fans miss playing Nebraska and Missouri, and don't like having four Texas schools in the conference. Most of us feel the same about West Virginia as most of you feel about Rutgers and Maryland.

But in those cases -- except Nebraska so far, and that is likely to change -- our schools are financially much better off than we in the good old days.

 

[grosie#2]

I think eventually the Big 12 will fade away if it doesn't expand to at least 12 teams. They must pick up a ND or maybe a BYU. It comes down to money and the ability for them to get a team in the final 4. Texas and Oklahoma would probably leave just because the strength of schedule playing in the Big 12, right now, is not as impressive as playing in one of the other major conferences. It would look very attractive for Texas and OU to move to the Pac12 or the Big 10. They could compete in a true conference championship game and play better completion. Much simpler to get to the NC game.

 

[89and91]

The only thing iowa state brings to the Big Ten is the TV viewers of story county. Not sure how big the Big Ten will need to get before that is an attractive option.