• You do not need to register if you are not going to pay the yearly fee to post. If you register please click here or log in go to "settings" then "my account" then "User Upgrades" and you can renew.

HuskerMax readers can save 50% on  Omaha Steaks .

Locked due to no posts in 60 days. Report 1st post if need unlocked 14 teams, 9 games, no divisions! More original work on scheduling, please look...

Status
Not open for further replies.
AnchorageHusker said:
First you said a seeded divisional crossover, next you said 7 conference games. The problem is that with seeding the single crossover is where are you going to play that game? Do the top 4 in the division always play at home? It creates problems for guys like Jamrog, who are trying to manage revenue that whole athletic departments are depending on to operate. As for 7 games, yes, that could work from a scheduling stand point but you're leaving millions in add revenue on the table, and frankly what's the point in having a conference if you don't play each other?

Also thanks, if you don't care to read my "15 paragraphs" then don't. But don't tell me that you've got a better idea when I carefully thought through mine, and you can't be bothered to read or evaluate it.
Click to expand...


oh now don't get upset. I read it and evaluated it and don't like it. You don't like mine. Okay. But don't tell me I can't make changes to mine. That is unamerican. You keep leaping to conclusions that have no factual foundation for the sole purpose of dismissing a proposal you don't like.
 

CombatTargeteer said:
oh now don't get upset. I read it and evaluated it and don't like it. You don't like mine. Okay. But don't tell me I can't make changes to mine. That is unamerican. You keep leaping to conclusions that have no factual foundation for the sole purpose of dismissing a proposal you don't like.
Click to expand...

No, I'm just going with what you said. You can make changes all you want. The point is, that I really think that you lose a lot by not playing every team in the league. All of that recruiting territory that was opened to us in Ohio, Michigan, Pennsylvania, New Jersey and the DC area will be as foreign to us as it was in the Big 8 days. All of that glorious money from prime-time matchups with tOSU, Michigan and Penn State, gone.

Also, I prefer it when people simply address my points than playing Internet psychologist, if you don't like my system, give me a substantive criticism. The whole point of my coming up with it (which by the way took much more time than you reading it) was to maintain the benefits of a small league while enjoying the benefits of a big league. I think that my system offers more unity, interest, intrigue, fairness and flexibility than any divisional arrangement. Furthermore, it does not sacrifice the big matchups that make the money, which was the point of building these super conferences in the first place.

Finally, lets look at a strict divisional arrangement to a 16 team league (which btw, we're not there yet' this is really a moot point.)

For arguments sake we'll add Kansas and Mizzou.

West

Nebraska
Mizzou
Kansas
Minnesota
Iowa
Wisconsin
Northwestern
Illinois

East

Michigan
tOSU
PSU
MSU
Indiana
Purdue
Maryland
Rutgers


So you'd play all the teams in the division and the west would end up with a limited TV profile and probably ends up getting dominated long term. Nebraska will be the king of the division but will probably struggle in recruiting. It's the Big XII all over again.
 
okay so we play all in the west and that leaves five games. If we had four home games we still need three of the remaining games to be played at home (or more revenue is made available in this hypothetical which makes having seven home games a season moot). So for the sake of discussion in this example (using your alignment) NU goes undefeated the first year and due to a coin toss play OSU as the one cross divisional game. So of the 15 possible Big ten teams we could play we played 8 (over half). We then played four non conference games, went undefeated and won the Big Ten. The worst team in the East division this year was Rutgers. So next year we play the same seven division rivals and Rutgers. And we play four non-conference games. We go undefeated and win the BiG ten again. The worst team in the East division is Maryland. So in year three we play Maryland as our cross divisional game.

This works for me. We make more money than ever before as we don't need seven home games every year cause the Big ten is paying out more money. We are beating whatever the big ten puts before us and winning championships. It even works if we lose every game except we would play the top ranked team in the east division every year.
 
Wait, why are 7 home games moot? 87,000 tickets sold or not sold is never going to be moot. As for your crossover, it doesn't benefit the strength of schedule and it's going to be a BTN game at best. Do you really think you're going to sell ABC on the idea of the best v the worst teams playing in the B1G?

Also, in these "seeded crossovers" who plays at home and who plays away? Why is the B1G suddenly distributing more money? Also what do you do about the majority of the population and money being on one side of the conference? The East would have a huge advantage in long term recruiting and they might even start wanting more revenue because their games are producing it and the West is leaching off of all of their money and marquee matchups.

My system solves all of these problems and creates more competitive fairness via eliminating the arbitrary split of divisions. I think it was 2006 where the Big XII demonstrated this problem. Nebraska was mediocre and the North was awful, Texas Tech, Oklahoma, and Texas were all 1 loss teams locked in a three way tie. Oklahoma went to the championship and destroyed us. One of thee teams should've gotten another shot, but they didn't this is why I dispose of divisions. Also my system could sell many more games to ABC and ESPN, and each team gets to play throughout the conference which balances recruiting exposure in all regions.
 



It's not the tickets sold its the money made. My example was only one game out of eight; why is it any different than us playing Idaho state? No one complains about that game why should a game with a conference team be any different plus the conference team might go undefeated the second year and we get whipped in that game. The schedulers will figure out the home and away just like they do now; I don't have to do that.

The B1G is distributing more money because they have more money to distribute.

In any system where your ideas are ten and everyone else's ideas are zero you win everytime.
 
CombatTargeteer said:
It's not the tickets sold its the money made. My example was only one game out of eight; why is it any different than us playing Idaho state? No one complains about that game why should a game with a conference team be any different plus the conference team might go undefeated the second year and we get whipped in that game. The schedulers will figure out the home and away just like they do now; I don't have to do that.

The B1G is distributing more money because they have more money to distribute.

In any system where your ideas are ten and everyone else's ideas are zero you win everytime.
Click to expand...

No one complains about the game against Idaho State? The last time I checked Bo Pelini did. And the question is, where would these seeded crossovers be played? I think this concept is severely flawed because of what it does to the planners. You could have anywhere from 6 to 3 home games in conference because of the arbitrary variable you created by seeding the crossover. Additionally, I recognize that there is big money coming from TV revenue, but needlessly throwing away revenue from ticket sales is not what any manager is going to do. Currently, the B1G is paying out about 20 million a year in TV revenue to the teams. The tickets are yielding probably around the same, and they are most definitely grossing more. This doesn't even consider the sizable donation that most season ticket holders are making for the privilege to buy the tickets. For a university the size of Nebraska you need to see the 7 games as a non-negotiable minimum because that's how Jeff Jamrog sees them, and that's how Shawn Eichorist sees them.

Why do you say that the B1G is going to have more money? Especially when you're deleting the prime time matchups that make the most money? Where is this extra money coming from?

And to combine our other conversation, the unpredictability of having the potential for only 3 home games means that any year where three home games are scheduled you re stuck scheduling 4 conference home games, meaning that you can only afford to have one BCS caliber non-conference team on the schedule, and you are going to pay out the nose to get teams like Southern Miss, Fresno State and Wyoming to come without a return trip at some point.

Also, I am not simply attacking your ideas, I gave this whole expansion a lot of thought. My criticisms are substantial, they are so because I specifically designed my system to solve the problems of the obvious ways to do things. I don't think that operating a 14 or 16 team conference the way you do a 12 team conference will be good for TV, will be good for conference unity, scheduling or be very fun to watch. Criticizing ideas, and giving reasons for your criticisms is how big boys communicate. Your actual criticisms of my plan up to this point have been "it takes 15 paragraphs to explain," and "I don't like it." So please, if you have something more substantial, I'll be glad to listen. You'll see that others have offered critiques which I have responded to, you have not.

Also, why are we even talking about 16, my whole argument was making 14 not suck. The B1G doesn't even have 16 schools it has 14.
 




CombatTargeteer said:
and the payout may go to 100 million a year
Click to expand...

There is no indication anywhere that it will do that, whereas if you're Nebraska you have this big piece of capital investment called Memorial stadium that you are going to use.

Also, nothing you are saying jives with what is coming from Delany, or the COP/C. The every team wants to play every other team, I've devised a way to make it so, while maintaining core rivalries, competitive, balance and regional sense. I think that they had an attachment to those concepts, not the two division format.
 
okay just 35M a year

http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/20...l/11/18/big-ten-expansion-tv-money/index.html

While getting all 15 million homes is unlikely, this could potentially be a $100 million annual television windfall for the Big Ten. (That figure doesn't include the additional money that will come from the added markets and games when the Big Ten negotiates its next television contract in 2017.) It's estimated that the Big Ten's annual payout could increase to between $30-35 million per year, nearly double the ACC's $17 million payout.

Read More: http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/20...n-expansion-tv-money/index.html#ixzz2DCrpk1mZ
Click to expand...
 
CombatTargeteer said:
okay just 35M a year

http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/20...l/11/18/big-ten-expansion-tv-money/index.html
Click to expand...

Right, and I guarantee you that making those revenues is dependent upon regularly selling big match-ups to ESPN/ABC, which will happen less often with a divisional arrangement than with my set up. Plus you're also guaranteed to get to relevant teams in the title game every year, rather than some also ran from the weaker of two gargantuan divisions.
 
I like the idea but I don't. The reasons I don't like it are because it's so different than anything that has been done, and it might be kind of confusing for the fans. However, the first is a viceral reason that I think I would get past. And the second really doesn't matter all that much because it will be explained to us ad nauseum, like when the announcers clarify what "confirmed" and "stands as called" mean on every review.

I really like that it keeps teams playing each other just as often as they do now. It does lend to more of a conference unity IMO.
 



The Impaler said:
I like the idea but I don't. The reasons I don't like it are because it's so different than anything that has been done, and it might be kind of confusing for the fans. However, the first is a viceral reason that I think I would get past. And the second really doesn't matter all that much because it will be explained to us ad nauseum, like when the announcers clarify what "confirmed" and "stands as called" mean on every review.

I really like that it keeps teams playing each other just as often as they do now. It does lend to more of a conference unity IMO.
Click to expand...

Thanks, do you see any other problems? Any tweaks that would be made?
 
initial thought - intriguing, best 14 team scheduling I've seen.

further review - worry about designated 5 being "even" for everyone - (example) Wisky's 5 seem less challenging than most of the upper teams. understand that's a variable which can be tweaked, just wonder if it will ever seem equal.

also wonder about fan confusion.
 
Last edited:

AnchorageHusker said:
Thanks, do you see any other problems? Any tweaks that would be made?
Click to expand...

I think the team setup would need to be tweaked probably, looked a little top heavy for NU. I didn't really bother pointing that out as you stated it was a hypothetical. I'm not sure I would be sold on this setup, but it is certainly a realistic solution to what will become a rather watered down conference schedule. Just may take me time to wrap my head around it.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

GET TICKETS


Get 50% off on Omaha Steaks

Back
Top