I don't think the number of games played each year would increase (this is still college football, sort of) but non-conference play could certainly take a hit. Maybe work in a few small non-conference schools here and there, those games are money makers for them.
-
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 .
How Big Is Too B1G?
- Thread starter Cornhuskers7
- Start date
For TV, having more conference games is a good thing. (Say going to 10 conference games, and cutting nonconference by one.) But the other effect of that is that half the teams will have one less home game. That's a lot of local revenue negatively impacted, and possibly home fans that are left out too. Maybe those nonconference games are not primo match-ups, but the home gate is not a negligible number.
If the media deal compensates, I could see individual schools coming out ahead with more conference games, but the distribution of that money within the community isn't the same. Losing a home game vs a directional school hurts local restaurants, hotels, vendors, etc. Its a consideration anyway.
Maybe the upside is that there will be a post-season model where schools can host the first round on campus sites. I've long wished for a 16 team playoff like the FCS does, with home stadiums as the sites. Local vendors would jump at that!
Curious as to how having divisions you resolve scheduling equity? We have been in divisions ever since we joined the big and scheduling equity is terrible. By and large the west has always had it easier than the east. It’s usually resulted in lessor ranked west divisional championship attendee in place of a higher ranked second place east team.
Getting rid of divisions at least doesn’t overlook the second place team and since we already have unfair scheduling what makes it any worse.
Given the thread title how many pages before this thread gets moved to HT?
Having divisions with 14 teams has not fixed scheduling inequities. NOT having divisions with 14 or 24 teams is not going to fix scheduling inequities.
16 teams with or without divisions is not going to resolve scheduling inequities but lets say there are 20 teams - two divisions. You'd have 9 divisional games annually and maybe 1 cross-over.. Now one division may be stronger than the other and the 2nd place team in one division may be better than the 1st place team in the other division BUT ... at the end of the day adding more teams is NOT going to make scheduling inequity any better.
I just think the conversations on schedules is not going to get any easier. The more teams there are is going to create more dimensions. BUT ... I cannot imagine a 16-team one division conference is going to have an equitable determination of a champion. Some teams are going to get stuck playing tOSU and other teams will get Rutgers!
I agree with you that going bigger won’t resolve the scheduling inequities. I’m just saying that putting them in divisions won’t either and can also tie your hands. By putting them in Divisions you are guaranteeing 8 of those 9 teams always get OSU while most others rarely do.
Much more flexibility without division restrictions.
Excellent post imo. With 24 teams you have a football league not a football conference as we know them now. Even the NFL teams play everyone in their divisions TWICE a season. Without divisions you'd have teams that might not play each other for a dozen years or longer? Gotta have divsions for the reasons you've stated or it would be a cluster you know what! Teams might not like the division they land in but that's to bad because they voted to expand.
Last edited:
Tokyo University to join B1G member.
depends on when you start posting pictures....
Last edited:
