Official 2010-2011 NCAA Football Thread

[Soxbadger]

I read the articles and they are speculative like everything else.

 

My opinion is that Texas to the the Big 10 is not going to happen. They originally talked about it, and even may have made an exception to bring 1 Texas school with UT. But once the Pac 10 offered to bring 3-4 Texas schools, the Big 10 became irrelevant. Im pretty sure that Texas has to listen to the legislature due to the oil endowment. So they are going to stick with the other Texas schools if that means more money for them.

 

I cant imagine ISU to the Big 10. It would make no sense for the Big 10, the whole idea of adding schools was so that they could have more "footprint" states. The Big 10 network contract has language that the Big 10 gets far more money from every subscriber in a "footprint" state, than it does from a non-footprint.

 

Iowa is already in the footprint, adding Iowa State would effectively add 0 revenue, 0 tradition and 0 prestige (no offense but Im not sure anyone outside of the midwest even knows Iowa State). The Big 10 can decide who they want to add, they have a variety of options to go to either 12, 14 or 16 schools.

 

I just cant imagine the Big 10 deciding that one of the next 5 schools would be ISU over say Syracuse, Uconn, Rutgers, etc. Those schools would bring in new states and tremendous amounts of revenue.

 

Im not even sure why the Big 10 is entertaining Missouri, they really dont do much in the wow factor.

[Heads22]

Wow, not only does it come out that Colorado has no invite to any conference as of now, but APR issues may cost them both men's basketball and football scholarships.

[Heads22]

But now it sounds like Nebraska is gone.

[Soxbadger]

I dont have any inside information, but reading between the lines it seems that Nebraska has an invite, but that MU does not at this time. Nebraska puts the big 10 at 12 and then they are going to wait and see on ND and their other choices to decide exactly where they are going.

 

MU would put the Big 10 at 13, which is no more desirable than 11. There also is the question of whether the big 10 would prefer 7 team divisions (that way all teams could play every 4 years maximum) versus 16 where some teams will almost never play.

 

I personally do not want a big conference because it will most likely mean Wisconsin not playing some teams, and what makes the Big 10 is that all team great is all teams play each other pretty regularly.

 

[T R U]

I dont have any inside information, but reading between the lines it seems that Nebraska has an invite, but that MU does not at this time. Nebraska puts the big 10 at 12 and then they are going to wait and see on ND and their other choices to decide exactly where they are going.

 

MU would put the Big 10 at 13, which is no more desirable than 11. There also is the question of whether the big 10 would prefer 7 team divisions (that way all teams could play every 4 years maximum) versus 16 where some teams will almost never play.

 

I personally do not want a big conference because it will most likely mean Wisconsin not playing some teams, and what makes the Big 10 is that all team great is all teams play each other pretty regularly.

 

I think if Nebraska splits, then every college in Texas joins the Pac-10..

 

that will then force Notre Dame into joining the Big 10 as well, and they pick up Mizzou to make it an even 14

[Jenksismyhero]

I read the articles and they are speculative like everything else.

 

My opinion is that Texas to the the Big 10 is not going to happen. They originally talked about it, and even may have made an exception to bring 1 Texas school with UT. But once the Pac 10 offered to bring 3-4 Texas schools, the Big 10 became irrelevant. Im pretty sure that Texas has to listen to the legislature due to the oil endowment. So they are going to stick with the other Texas schools if that means more money for them.

 

I cant imagine ISU to the Big 10. It would make no sense for the Big 10, the whole idea of adding schools was so that they could have more "footprint" states. The Big 10 network contract has language that the Big 10 gets far more money from every subscriber in a "footprint" state, than it does from a non-footprint.

 

Iowa is already in the footprint, adding Iowa State would effectively add 0 revenue, 0 tradition and 0 prestige (no offense but Im not sure anyone outside of the midwest even knows Iowa State). The Big 10 can decide who they want to add, they have a variety of options to go to either 12, 14 or 16 schools.

 

I just cant imagine the Big 10 deciding that one of the next 5 schools would be ISU over say Syracuse, Uconn, Rutgers, etc. Those schools would bring in new states and tremendous amounts of revenue.

 

Im not even sure why the Big 10 is entertaining Missouri, they really dont do much in the wow factor.

 

I think those east coast teams are low on the want list. It's Nebraska, Notre Dame and Texas they're after. Penn State already gets a pretty good chunk of New York, and none of those programs bring much to the football side of things. Ditto with Missouri...Illinois picks up most of St. Louis anyway. Though I think Missouri could easily contend in football.

[Jenksismyhero]

I think if Nebraska splits, then every college in Texas joins the Pac-10..

 

that will then force Notre Dame into joining the Big 10 as well, and they pick up Mizzou to make it an even 14

 

Why would Notre Dame be forced to move? IMO, the only way Notre Dame joins the Big Ten is if they manage to grab a couple of Big East teams. And even then, I'd be surprised if they did. Their football program is the money maker, and while they don't make as much as they could on TV in the Big Ten, they're essentially given a BCS birth every year. I think they become incredibly mediocre if they join a power conference and lose their special rules with the BCS.

[HuskyCaucasian]

I have an interesting thought on Super-conferences. Might this be a step in the direction of a playoff system?

 

There are currently 11 D1 football conferences. If the Big 12 gets sucked into the Big 10 and Pac 10... that leaves 9 plus the independents.

 

Take the conference champ from each league and include them in some sort of a structured playoff. I havent figured out how to factor in the independents, but you get the general idea. In a way, the conferences act as divisions in baseball. Maybe there could be a ranking system for the "wild card" spots that would factor int he independents. Seeding would be based on the BCS formula.

Edited June 9, 2010 by Athomeboy_2000

[HuskyCaucasian]

Would the ACC consider taking a run at a few Big East Teams?

 

I think once you see the Big 10 and Pac10 start sucking up teams, other conferences will fall soon there after (in the next few years)

[Jenksismyhero]

I have an interesting thought on Super-conferences. Might this be a step in the direction of a playoff system?

 

There are currently 11 D1 football conferences. If the Big 12 gets sucked into the Big 10 and Pac 10... that leaves 9 plus the independents.

 

Take the conference champ from each league and include them in some sort of a structured playoff. I havent figured out how to factor in the independents, but you get the general idea. In a way, the conferences act as divisions in baseball. Maybe there could be a ranking system for the "wild card" spots that would factor int he independents. Seeding would be based on the BCS formula.

 

No way the power conferences would accept a system that limits them to one possible slot in the playoff.

 

I still think they should continue to use the BCS rankings and just select the top 8 teams to play in a 3 round playoff. Power conferences still have the option of getting more than one member in, and lesser conference still have a chance to get in, and you're not making it big enough where it becomes a big crap shoot. You can still have the 50 milion lesser bowls, and the BCS bowls basically remain, but rotate in "importance" like they do now.

[HuskyCaucasian]

No way the power conferences would accept a system that limits them to one possible slot in the playoff.

 

I still think they should continue to use the BCS rankings and just select the top 8 teams to play in a 3 round playoff. Power conferences still have the option of getting more than one member in, and lesser conference still have a chance to get in, and you're not making it big enough where it becomes a big crap shoot. You can still have the 50 milion lesser bowls, and the BCS bowls basically remain, but rotate in "importance" like they do now.

What if it were a 12 team playoff (top 4 teams get a 1st round bye) with 5 "BCS" conference champs and 7 "wild card" invites.

[clyons]

Would the ACC consider taking a run at a few Big East Teams?

imo, most definitely

[Balta1701]

What if it were a 12 team playoff (top 4 teams get a 1st round bye) with 5 "BCS" conference champs and 7 "wild card" invites.

You've now set up a 4 game playoff system at 12 teams. While that would make a crap load of money for college football, the AD's/Presidents just aren't going to approve having the college football season run through the Super Bowl.

[HuskyCaucasian]

You've now set up a 4 game playoff system at 12 teams. While that would make a crap load of money for college football, the AD's/Presidents just aren't going to approve having the college football season run through the Super Bowl.

fair point... i think you under estimate the $$$ part though.

[Balta1701]

fair point... i think you under estimate the $$$ part though.

The money's been there for years and they still haven't managed to push through a playoff system. The more radical the plan, the less likely it is to get through.

 

If you think of this as a type of politics...what's the best way to get what you want? You buy off all of the entrenched interests and then offer people something new that also makes them money. Where are all the entrenched interests currently? They're associated with the conferences and bowl games. Anything you do that takes away the guys working for the Bowl games, the value of those sponsorships, the deals between the conferences, etc., hurts people with a lot of money invested in the current system.

 

IMO, if you want to get a College football playoff system, you build it on top of what you already have; the bowl games, and you don't make it too radical, so that the Presidents out there won't reject it.

 

The simple solution in my eyes is a 1 game playoff 1-2 weeks after the Bowl games, primetime TV, with the top 2 teams coming out of the bowl games, on a night when the NFL isn't playing. Keep all the bowls, so that all the current people have no reason to fight against it, only add one game, so that most college presidents won't freak out about the season extending, and you've got a possible negotiable path, at least until Lindsey Graham decides to filibuster it.

[Jenksismyhero]

The money's been there for years and they still haven't managed to push through a playoff system. The more radical the plan, the less likely it is to get through.

 

If you think of this as a type of politics...what's the best way to get what you want? You buy off all of the entrenched interests and then offer people something new that also makes them money. Where are all the entrenched interests currently? They're associated with the conferences and bowl games. Anything you do that takes away the guys working for the Bowl games, the value of those sponsorships, the deals between the conferences, etc., hurts people with a lot of money invested in the current system.

 

IMO, if you want to get a College football playoff system, you build it on top of what you already have; the bowl games, and you don't make it too radical, so that the Presidents out there won't reject it.

 

The simple solution in my eyes is a 1 game playoff 1-2 weeks after the Bowl games, primetime TV, with the top 2 teams coming out of the bowl games, on a night when the NFL isn't playing. Keep all the bowls, so that all the current people have no reason to fight against it, only add one game, so that most college presidents won't freak out about the season extending, and you've got a possible negotiable path, at least until Lindsey Graham decides to filibuster it.

 

Adding one game doesn't solve the problem. How do you determine which of the two BCS games are the two that will decide the champion? I'm guessing teams like Boise St. would still get screwed there. IMO you gotta extend it out far enough so that you eliminate people complaining that not enough of the worthy teams get in (at least 6, maybe 10 with the top 2 getting a bye)

[Balta1701]

Adding one game doesn't solve the problem. How do you determine which of the two BCS games are the two that will decide the champion? I'm guessing teams like Boise St. would still get screwed there. IMO you gotta extend it out far enough so that you eliminate people complaining that not enough of the worthy teams get in (at least 6, maybe 10 with the top 2 getting a bye)

Some team will always get screwed. I think the ideal length would be the bowl weekend, followed by a 4 team playoff, but I think it's more realistic to start off with a 2 team, one game playoff to get people used to the concept.

[RockRaines]

Redshirt frosh Scheelhaase named Illini starting QB.

 

http://sports.espn.go.com/chicago/ncf/news/story?id=5242601

 

I can feel the panic in Columbus from here.

So Charest paid them back by transferring?

[Soxbadger]

I think those east coast teams are low on the want list. It's Nebraska, Notre Dame and Texas they're after. Penn State already gets a pretty good chunk of New York, and none of those programs bring much to the football side of things. Ditto with Missouri...Illinois picks up most of St. Louis anyway. Though I think Missouri could easily contend in football.

 

Its not about "markets" its about a very specific contract clause between the big 10 network and tv networks.

 

The Big 10 network gets a certain amount per subscriber in states not in the "footprint" they get exponentially more for subscriber states in the "footprint".

 

The footprint is based on teams being located in that state. This is why Pittsburgh is unnecessary because Penn St. covers Penn., its why MU is some what desirable because STL is located in that state and it has a decent population base, its why Rutgers is desirable because its in NJ, its why they want Syracuse, because youd get the entire state of NY.

 

Texas is not coming to the Big 10, there was a chance months ago, but its not going to happen now. The Big 10 doesnt want Texas + and Texas will not move without bringing another Texas team.

 

The alleged Pac-10 offer giving Texas a chance to bring multiple Texas schools, Oklahoma, etc is something the Big 10 wont match.

 

Notre Dame is an outside possibility, it just depends on how they think its all going to turn out. If this marks the beginning of super conferences, ND will not want to be left out. There would be new BCS negotiations, and most likely the 4 super conferences would be the only ones with a shot at BCS/national title games.

 

When you have 4 sets of championship games (Pac-16, Big-16, SEC-16 and mystery-16) it will make it very easy to have those 4 be the teams that play for the championship.

 

Youd then have the rest of the conference go to bowl games against other super conferences to retain the bowl tradition.

 

If that happens, ND does not want to be independent, because no way will those schools let them in the party. Before they were good enough where there was a question of legitimacy if they didnt have a shot, now I dont think thats the case.

[CanOfCorn]

Its not about "markets" its about a very specific contract clause between the big 10 network and tv networks.

 

The Big 10 network gets a certain amount per subscriber in states not in the "footprint" they get exponentially more for subscriber states in the "footprint".

 

The footprint is based on teams being located in that state. This is why Pittsburgh is unnecessary because Penn St. covers Penn., its why MU is some what desirable because STL is located in that state and it has a decent population base, its why Rutgers is desirable because its in NJ, its why they want Syracuse, because youd get the entire state of NY.

 

Texas is not coming to the Big 10, there was a chance months ago, but its not going to happen now. The Big 10 doesnt want Texas + and Texas will not move without bringing another Texas team.

 

The alleged Pac-10 offer giving Texas a chance to bring multiple Texas schools, Oklahoma, etc is something the Big 10 wont match.

 

Notre Dame is an outside possibility, it just depends on how they think its all going to turn out. If this marks the beginning of super conferences, ND will not want to be left out. There would be new BCS negotiations, and most likely the 4 super conferences would be the only ones with a shot at BCS/national title games.

 

When you have 4 sets of championship games (Pac-16, Big-16, SEC-16 and mystery-16) it will make it very easy to have those 4 be the teams that play for the championship.

 

Youd then have the rest of the conference go to bowl games against other super conferences to retain the bowl tradition.

 

If that happens, ND does not want to be independent, because no way will those schools let them in the party. Before they were good enough where there was a question of legitimacy if they didnt have a shot, now I dont think thats the case.

 

Some addendums...Missouri will bring St. Louis AND Kansas City. Which is big.

Texas will have to bring A&M AND Tech...probably OU, which will HAVE to bring OSU and possibly Baylor. So, yes, UT is out.

[Soxbadger]

Should have been more clear about KC when I said "decent population base"

 

Also here is a post from a MU board, they seem to feel the same way I do. Nebraska is in as 12, the rest is a wait and see.

 

http://www.tigerboard.com/boards/missouri-...message=7631170

Edited June 9, 2010 by Soxbadger

[RockRaines]

Masoli-HE GONE!

 

Dismissed from Oregon. HAHAHA. Ill always remember the way the Buckeyes said farewell to your college career. With a beatin.

[T R U]

Well, ESPN just said Nebraska has agreed to join the Big 10 and they Big 10 has given them a formal invite..

 

Pretty sure thats what the bottom line just said..

[danman31]

Its not about "markets" its about a very specific contract clause between the big 10 network and tv networks.

 

The Big 10 network gets a certain amount per subscriber in states not in the "footprint" they get exponentially more for subscriber states in the "footprint".

 

The footprint is based on teams being located in that state. This is why Pittsburgh is unnecessary because Penn St. covers Penn., its why MU is some what desirable because STL is located in that state and it has a decent population base, its why Rutgers is desirable because its in NJ, its why they want Syracuse, because youd get the entire state of NY.

This is the part that makes it a little odd that Nebraska is the new favorite. They are 38th in population among the states at 1.8 million. That is the only defense for Rutgers and Syracuse. Both have big populous states. Missouri is more towards the middle in that category.

[HuskyCaucasian]

Well, ESPN just said Nebraska has agreed to join the Big 10 and they Big 10 has given them a formal invite..

 

Pretty sure thats what the bottom line just said..

ESPN-

A source close to the Nebraska program told ESPN's Chris Mortensen that athletic director Tom Osborne informed athletic staff members within the past 24 hours that the Cornhuskers were going to make the move to the Big Ten conference.

 

A source close to the Nebraska Board of Regents told Orangebloods.com the regents met informally Wednesday and have agreed to move to the Big Ten and that a formal announcement Nebraska is leaving will come Friday -- the deadline set by the Big 12 for Nebraska and Missouri to state whether they intend to leave the conference.