Warren says Big Ten will go to 20...

OaktonDave

Well-Known Member
Oct 18, 2007
980
910
1
I think I see where you are going but the biggest question to me beyond the two I posed is who has standing to sue. Regardless, I think it is pretty clear the legislature is the only party with the ability to agree on behalf of the VA schools and they didn't. The PA legislature would likely have a claim as well as NC. Like it said, the foundation is pretty weak. The question becomes, who has standing.
If that's the case, it makes it between the Presidents or Chancellors of the universities and the state. They can't sue the ACC to get out of the deal because the ACC did nothing wrong; the error was 100% on the VA side. There is no reasonable argument that the state didn't know what happened when it happened. They did and chose to do nothing to correct it for a period of years while knowingly reaping the benefits. The problem isn't who has standing to sue the ACC but the basis for the suit. What did the ACC do wrong that would make them a defendant in a lawsuit filed by the state or the schools? (If the legislature is contending that they control the schools and only they can authorize entry into an agreement, then any distinction between the state and the schools is erased on the matter; the schools are just a subgroup of the state.) From an ACC perspective, the foundation is anything but weak - they offered a deal and lived by it. The failure isn't the ACCs to pay for, and internal failures by the state of VA don't create an escape route for them without major adverse consequences in trying to escape a deal they no longer like.
 
Last edited:

LongJakk

Well-Known Member
Sep 19, 2001
1,387
907
1
Cal & Stanford only make academic sense. They have no fan base to support a big tv contract. Much better off with Oregon, Washington, and Utah when ND decides to join. I could even see unlv ahead of Cal & Stanford just to have games in Vegas. It would be nice to swap Utah for another east coast team like UVA tho just to give PSU, Rutgers and MD another eastern rival.
 

LongJakk

Well-Known Member
Sep 19, 2001
1,387
907
1
Also, SEC and some others have proposed a 3-6-6 format, but it will be almost impossible to make that work in B1G. That basically means 4 pods of 4 playing each other every year. For example our pod would likely be PSU, MD, RU & MSU, but MSU would never accept not playing Michigan every year so who would then become our 4th? Now say you put osu, Michigan, msu in a pod. Who is their 4th? Wisconsin makes sense, but they will want to play Minn and Iowa. The only clear cut pod could be indy, Purdue, NW & Illinois. There are just too many longstanding rivalries and border wars to accommodate.
 

fairfaxlion2

Well-Known Member
Oct 12, 2014
8,803
6,719
1
unpopular prediction - the leagues are going to become too large and end interest in the sport. It is easy to see this coming. They will make sure that OSU-Michigan happens every year, but other games that various fanbases look forward to will start happening every 3 years, or even less frequently than that. There is a reason they didn't form 25-school leagues 100 years ago.
 

Op2

Well-Known Member
Mar 16, 2014
6,506
4,589
1
unpopular prediction - the leagues are going to become too large and end interest in the sport. It is easy to see this coming. They will make sure that OSU-Michigan happens every year, but other games that various fanbases look forward to will start happening every 3 years, or even less frequently than that. There is a reason they didn't form 25-school leagues 100 years ago.
I don't know if it will become less popular but I definitely think it's not a given that it will stay as popular. Some people just assume all this new stuff will go over better than what we had in the past. Why is that necessarily the case? Just because football is still involved doesn't mean people will like it as much (or, to be fair, as little).

Other than the football part, what we're getting in the future will be completely different than what we had in the past.

Why, by the way, should fans of schools left out of the Big 2 conferences have any interest in any of this? If things were reversed and PSU was being left out and, say, Texas Tech and Kansas State were in the Big 2 conferences, would you have any interest in watching Texas Tech vs Kansas State?
 

fairfaxlion2

Well-Known Member
Oct 12, 2014
8,803
6,719
1
I don't know if it will become less popular but I definitely think it's not a given that it will stay as popular. Some people just assume all this new stuff will go over better than what we had in the past. Why is that necessarily the case? Just because football is still involved doesn't mean people will like it as much (or, to be fair, as little).

Other than the football part, what we're getting in the future will be completely different than what we had in the past.

Why, by the way, should fans of schools left out of the Big 2 conferences have any interest in any of this? If things were reversed and PSU was being left out and, say, Texas Tech and Kansas State were in the Big 2 conferences, would you have any interest in watching Texas Tech vs Kansas State?

I think interest is going to decline, and quickly. The massive TV/streaming deals are going to flop and the conferences will be forced to renegotiate. Mix in the likelihood that some cable providers or streaming services go bankrupt in the middle of the contract.
 

africamurphy

Well-Known Member
Apr 1, 2019
178
216
1
unpopular prediction - the leagues are going to become too large and end interest in the sport. It is easy to see this coming. They will make sure that OSU-Michigan happens every year, but other games that various fanbases look forward to will start happening every 3 years, or even less frequently than that. There is a reason they didn't form 25-school leagues 100 years ago.
Well, as a PSU fan, I have virtually no interest in us playing Iowa almost yearly. I'd rather play Iowa twice every eight years and get to play Washington or Florida State or USC or UNC twice every eight year as well. I have no affinity for any Big Ten school per se. Ohio State has been a nice nemesis to bash our heads against...but other than that, I'm excited about a 20-24 team Big Ten.

(It will be division-less and pod-less, by the way. If you're thinking a "two flank" Big Ten that never plays the other flank...think again. Same for some pod structure where we play 5 teams every year and rarely play the other dozen or so teams...think again.)
 
  • Like
Reactions: bytir

africamurphy

Well-Known Member
Apr 1, 2019
178
216
1
Also, SEC and some others have proposed a 3-6-6 format, but it will be almost impossible to make that work in B1G. That basically means 4 pods of 4 playing each other every year. For example our pod would likely be PSU, MD, RU & MSU, but MSU would never accept not playing Michigan every year so who would then become our 4th? Now say you put osu, Michigan, msu in a pod. Who is their 4th? Wisconsin makes sense, but they will want to play Minn and Iowa. The only clear cut pod could be indy, Purdue, NW & Illinois. There are just too many longstanding rivalries and border wars to accommodate.
You don't need pods. The actual "clear cut pod" is Minn/Wiscy/Iowa/Neb. But I digress.

You don't need pods just 3 protected rivals per school. It's rare that two schools have the same other two "preferred rivals"
 
  • Like
Reactions: doctornick

africamurphy

Well-Known Member
Apr 1, 2019
178
216
1
It's going to stay or grow in popularity from a scheduling standpoint.

The high-interest teams and CFB commodities are consolidating. The ACC started the wave with their expansion grabs in the 90s/OOs. FSU...Miami...VaTech...all boosted the leagues football attractiveness. PSU and Nebraska were two elite grabs by the Big Ten. Mizzou and TAMU were nice grabs by the SEC (but were more about TV markets and shaking loose Texas/OU). Rutgers and Maryland were MOSTLY about TV market and shaking loose UVA/UNC from the ACC (and potentially destabilizing the ACC enough to land Notre Dame).

And now Texas/OU to the SEC? HUGE moves for scheduling interest. And USC/UCLA to the Big Ten? HUGE moves for scheduling interest.

The teams that are getting marginalized...the Big 12 leftovers, the current Pac-10.

(If you're talking about wild cards in the future of CFB, it's what if fans of the little guys get disillusioned enough that they tune out...i.e. Tulsa fans quits watching SEC and BIg 12, Akron fans quite watching Big Ten, Appalachian State fans boycott ACC...etc.)
 

africamurphy

Well-Known Member
Apr 1, 2019
178
216
1
Cal & Stanford only make academic sense. They have no fan base to support a big tv contract. Much better off with Oregon, Washington, and Utah when ND decides to join. I could even see unlv ahead of Cal & Stanford just to have games in Vegas. It would be nice to swap Utah for another east coast team like UVA tho just to give PSU, Rutgers and MD another eastern rival.
Yes, it's partially about academics. But it's also a nice "parity" addition. But the big reason is recruiting and national allure of the brand. Do you know how much population lives within 150 miles of San Fran? And how many Big Ten alums? If Purdue or Iowa plays at Cal/Stanford every five years or so...they'll fill the place up, just with their alums driving from Oakland, San Jose, Sacramento...let alone San Fran.

PSU fills 30-40% of Maryland/Rutgers stadiums every other year...so imagine if PSU only played there every 5 or 6 years?!?!
 

africamurphy

Well-Known Member
Apr 1, 2019
178
216
1
Another schedule model to consider...now assuming the Big Ten goes to 10 league games as they've been rumored to be doing.

3-2*-6

Three yearly protected rivals.
Two alternating yearly rivals
Six games spread out evenly over the rest of the league.

This method gets you more repeat opponents each season--regional, historical. But it also allows for extra strong TV matchups with the two alternating teams. You play each of those teams home-away every four years. And the final portion--the 6 other games--gives you great variety in your yearly schedule.

PSU would have OSU, Rutgers, Maryland as yearly rivals. And Michigan and Nebraska as alternating rivals.

I'm only going to play out three years...but this would have you playing...
3 teams yearly
2 teams every other year.
14 teams every 3.5 years (i.e. in 7 years, you'd have home-away games with your entire conference)

Year 1

At OSU
UMD
At Rutgers

UM

At Iowa
Minnesota
At UCLA
Stanford
At Illinois
Purdue


Year 2
OSU
At UMD
Rutgers

At UM

Wisconsin
At Northwestern
USC
At Washington
Cal
At Indiana


Year 3
At OSU
UMD
At Rutgers

Nebraska

At Oregon
Michigan State
At *UCLA
*Minnesota
At *Iowa
*Illinois

Another advantage to this model is that it integrate the Pac teams (again, they'd play the entire Big Ten (20) twice every seven years)...while also only making them fly east of the Rockies three times every season.
 
  • Like
Reactions: LMTLION

wilbury

Well-Known Member
Feb 19, 2005
2,865
1,918
1
Cal & Stanford only make academic sense. They have no fan base to support a big tv contract. Much better off with Oregon, Washington, and Utah when ND decides to join. I could even see unlv ahead of Cal & Stanford just to have games in Vegas. It would be nice to swap Utah for another east coast team like UVA tho just to give PSU, Rutgers and MD another eastern rival.
Fan base support doesn't matter. Only the TV market matters.
 

LandoComando

Well-Known Member
Nov 29, 2021
3,761
1,265
1
unpopular prediction - the leagues are going to become too large and end interest in the sport. It is easy to see this coming. They will make sure that OSU-Michigan happens every year, but other games that various fanbases look forward to will start happening every 3 years, or even less frequently than that. There is a reason they didn't form 25-school leagues 100 years ago.a
End interest in the sport? If you said diminish maybe I could buy into that but it would still be "unpopular" but "end" there's no chance
The reason large leagues didn't exist 100 years ago was due to scheduling constraints which are essentially irrelevant today
Let's say Penn State is paired with Michigan State as our yearly opponent. I will be 100% fine with the initial scheduling plan.
I would be thrilled to mix up our schedule and see teams like USC, UCLA, Stanford, Miami, Florida State and even Cal. If anything the stagnant schedule is my biggest issue with the conference as is. I don't care to play Indiana, Rutgers or Maryland yearly. I don't even need to play Michigan or Ohio State yearly.
The biggest thing expansion does is take out the need for NCAA involvement and will give us a legit playoff--like 12 to 16 teams. That alone will make college football more popular.
 

Latest posts