But they lose the schedule padding victories over the rest of the PAC 12. And the rest of the BIG has been stronger than the bulk of the PAC
The end game for the B1G...
- Thread starter Katatonic
- Start date
If they're gonna shake up college football, how about shaking up the B1G? Does bringing in USC and UCLA preserve traditional rivalries (for them)? Is it easier for someone from, say, Minnesota to get to west Lafayette or to Lincoln? Geography is the only fair way to create the new divisions. If there are ultimately 6 teams per division, you play 5 games against your division and four against your traditional rivals, if they are not already in your division. And that still leaves 4 games to play against anyone else. If there are three divisions of eight, you play 7 games there, leaving 5 games for rivals and others. What's the big deal. If you win your division, you get to play the winner of another division or two also. And if you are Northwestern and you're good enough you get to go to the National Championship. Wouldn't it be great if that were against our traditional rival, Wisconsin.
You are correct, though, that to go strictly by geography, longitudinally (although it is close), Purdue should be in the Mideast and NU in the Midwest division. It just felt to me that being Chicago's team (as has been promoted), this would be the time to up the ante. Strategically, though, we certainly have a better chance of rising to the top of a Midwest division. However, hypothetically, if OSU is #1 in the country (or any other team in that division) and we are second to them in that division, there is no way we wouldn't be included in the national playoff. Whereas if we are at the top of a Midwest division, we still need to play the winner of the Mideast OSU Division to advance.
Last edited:
Flipping NU and PU makes absolutely no sense as Wisky, Minny, Iowa and Nebby would all be driving thru/by Chicago to get to West Lafayette.
It's about a 6 hr drive from the Twin Cities to Evanston (you should be familiar with that), but heading to West Lafayette adds another 2 hours (an 8 hr car ride is a good bit more tiresome than a 6 hr one).
Furthermore, NU and all the rest of schools I have listed for the Heartland division are on Central standard time.
Purdue is on Eastern standard time.
You keep harping on having a (rather arbitrary) geographic division (for "fairness"), but now you admit flipping NU and PU doesn't fit your geographic criteria? Lol
Don't know why you think sticking the Cats with dOSU, PSU, UM and MSU is a good idea.
When was the last time the Cats beat PSU?
Michigan?
dOSU?
Sure, in a good year the Cats can probably beat MSU and one of PSU/UM, but it's going to extremely tough to beat 3 of the 4.
Even the 300 lb bully of the B1G, dOSU, wouldn't be happy having a tougher road than ND or USC, so why should NU be happy about that?
Furthermore, why would you want to separate NU from its 2 heated rivalries (Iowa and Wisky), much less its in-state rival?
The scheduling scenarios you have listed would be far too complicated to sort out and would make for really unbalanced schedules.
For instance, UM would already be playing dOSU, PSU and MSU as divisional opponents, so do you really want them to play ND and USC all/most of the time as well since those schools are considered rivals?
The scheduling would already be complicated enough in the scenario I suggested - 5 divisional games, 6 games with another division (so, play each of the other 3 divisions once every 3 yrs) with 1 rivalry game (basically, to allow for an annual USC/ND matchup).
NU's logical rivalry games would be with Stanford and Dook (need more than 1 rival for the year you end up playing the division your set rival is in; so in the year the Atlantic plays the Pacific, ND would need a substitute rival for USC).
There is absolutely no rational in thinking that some geographic divide denotes competitive fairness.
Say the B1G adds ND and 1 other school (let's say Stanford) and stops there.
If we are going to divide the conference simply on a geographic divide of 9 schools in each division, the end result would be this -
EAST
dOSU
UM
PSU
ND
MSU
IU
PU
UMD
RU
WEST
USC
UCLA
UW
NU
Stanford
Iowa
UNL
Minn
UI
Does this divisional breakdown look fair to you? Lol
Can guarantee that dOSU, PSU, UM, ND and for that matter, the rest of the schools set to be in the East would not go along with it.
It's about a 6 hr drive from the Twin Cities to Evanston (you should be familiar with that), but heading to West Lafayette adds another 2 hours (an 8 hr car ride is a good bit more tiresome than a 6 hr one).
Furthermore, NU and all the rest of schools I have listed for the Heartland division are on Central standard time.
Purdue is on Eastern standard time.
You keep harping on having a (rather arbitrary) geographic division (for "fairness"), but now you admit flipping NU and PU doesn't fit your geographic criteria? Lol
Don't know why you think sticking the Cats with dOSU, PSU, UM and MSU is a good idea.
When was the last time the Cats beat PSU?
Michigan?
dOSU?
Sure, in a good year the Cats can probably beat MSU and one of PSU/UM, but it's going to extremely tough to beat 3 of the 4.
Even the 300 lb bully of the B1G, dOSU, wouldn't be happy having a tougher road than ND or USC, so why should NU be happy about that?
Furthermore, why would you want to separate NU from its 2 heated rivalries (Iowa and Wisky), much less its in-state rival?
The scheduling scenarios you have listed would be far too complicated to sort out and would make for really unbalanced schedules.
For instance, UM would already be playing dOSU, PSU and MSU as divisional opponents, so do you really want them to play ND and USC all/most of the time as well since those schools are considered rivals?
The scheduling would already be complicated enough in the scenario I suggested - 5 divisional games, 6 games with another division (so, play each of the other 3 divisions once every 3 yrs) with 1 rivalry game (basically, to allow for an annual USC/ND matchup).
NU's logical rivalry games would be with Stanford and Dook (need more than 1 rival for the year you end up playing the division your set rival is in; so in the year the Atlantic plays the Pacific, ND would need a substitute rival for USC).
There is absolutely no rational in thinking that some geographic divide denotes competitive fairness.
Say the B1G adds ND and 1 other school (let's say Stanford) and stops there.
If we are going to divide the conference simply on a geographic divide of 9 schools in each division, the end result would be this -
EAST
dOSU
UM
PSU
ND
MSU
IU
PU
UMD
RU
WEST
USC
UCLA
UW
NU
Stanford
Iowa
UNL
Minn
UI
Does this divisional breakdown look fair to you? Lol
Can guarantee that dOSU, PSU, UM, ND and for that matter, the rest of the schools set to be in the East would not go along with it.
Last edited:
If I were in charge of the Big Ten, I would want a division with:
Michigan
Michigan State
Notre Dame
Purdue
Northwestern
This would keep ND's historic rivalries with all the other teams it has historic rivalries in the Big Ten, with the exception of USC. And as a Northwestern fan living in Michigan, it would make it a lot easier to go to road games with these schools. 🤣
Michigan
Michigan State
Notre Dame
Purdue
Northwestern
This would keep ND's historic rivalries with all the other teams it has historic rivalries in the Big Ten, with the exception of USC. And as a Northwestern fan living in Michigan, it would make it a lot easier to go to road games with these schools. 🤣
Last edited:
Cal is a VERY underrated candidate here, if you ask me … people are way too caught up on the fact that Cal happens to currently be bad at sports, but that does not have to be the case.
I have to agree. Cal has a lot going for it. Huge alumni base with a deep history. Top academics. Nicely done renovated stadium (attended the last NU-Cal game there.) There is a lot of sense for Cal/Stanford as a combo esp for their academics. OR&WA is another combo that makes sense for the strength of the athletics program. I hate that this is all leading to blowing up the PAC-12 but it seems inevitable now.
The last few years Cal has been bad at revenue sports. It is very, very good at all the other sports. That, in part, is why I can’t imagine Cal joining the B1G except as a last resort.
The football program at Cal has lost all leverage to drive the athletic department, much less the chancellor’s office and the overall UC system’s President. The non-revenue sports’ leadership would rebel over having to join the B1G.
In the course of several years, the athletic department went deep, deep into debt to finance the $500million renovation of Memorial Stadium. The football program then embarrassed the University by dropping to the bottom of the conference in academic achievement while simultaneously losing the ability to tackle.
While UCLA was able to make the decision to bolt, a similar move would meet huge resistance in the non-football sports constituencies, alumni, university administration, and system leadership.
A football only deal might be possible if the Northwest schools bolt, but I think a full migration would never get off the ground.
If not the BigTen, what other options are really practical for Cal? Is it possible for Cal football to rebound? I’m a little surprised to hear that Cal athletics and alums would not favor a move to the BigTen. I remember the problems renovating the stadium, the delays with the protesters in the trees that drove up the costs.
As a member of the UC system, USB’s arrogance is legendary. I think they are cutting their own throats if they pass up an invite to join the BigTen. I’m fascinated by the discussions that might be going on at Cal and Stanford now, OR and WA as well. My Ducks fan nephew is freaking out about the future of the U Of O’s athletics future post-PAC12. Would U of O and WA get invites from the SEC to mirror what the BIgTen’s move to bring in USC and UCLA?
Why would the B1G totally cater to ND's historic rivals (over that of all the other schools)?
Plus, one of the main reasons ND has resisted joining the B1G is that they do not want to be seen as a Midwestern school and sticking ND in that division has the opposite effect.
If ND ends up joining (which, for the immediate future, seems less likely according to the scuttlebutt) can see the B1G stopping there, that is unless Uncle Phil is willing to pony up the big $$ to get Oregon into the conference.
The option for Cal and whatever other schools that don't get into B1G or SEC is to combine with the best programs in the B12, or maybe even join the ACC.
Even with the loss of the LA schools, the Pac 12 has the better remaining foundation; the only reason why the remainder of the B12 would be in a better situation is bc the B12 really doesn't have any school that either the B1G or SEC would want (aside from maybe KU for the SEC) if they expand to 20+ schools.
Wouldn't dismiss joining the ACC - back during the 70s, there was talk among the Pac 8, the Eastern independents and the academies into forming the "airplane conference."
And that was before the time of immense broadcast/streaming revenue and even cheaper flights.
Even with the loss of the LA schools, the Pac 12 has the better remaining foundation; the only reason why the remainder of the B12 would be in a better situation is bc the B12 really doesn't have any school that either the B1G or SEC would want (aside from maybe KU for the SEC) if they expand to 20+ schools.
Wouldn't dismiss joining the ACC - back during the 70s, there was talk among the Pac 8, the Eastern independents and the academies into forming the "airplane conference."
And that was before the time of immense broadcast/streaming revenue and even cheaper flights.
Last edited:
First, a lot of the Cal community cares about women’s and non-revenue sports, and would be really, really, vocally angry if the football program, after spending a half billion on a stadium it fills 50%, tried to force a merger that would have the volleyball team flying halfway or fully across the country for most away games. Some Old Blue football supporters might reluctantly go along, but the non-football Cal community is louder and probably more numerous.
Secondly, the stadium rebuild was a fiasco that really soured a lot of long time supporters. The costs were clearly more than the program could afford (and the tree stuff was not what drove them). Sandy Barbour, the AD, bought the sales pitch that seat licenses would help cover the shortfall. The seat licenses did not sell well, and many long term fans essentially got evicted from their good locations because they wouldn’t pony up the amounts being asked, and were really steamed at being asked to pay a license with really marginal upgrades for their experience. For most, the game day experience upgrade was that if an earthquake occurred during a game, they were less likely to die. Finally, the ask came when the team had gone to hell, along with the reports on poor academic progress. Like NU, Cal folks prided themselves on combining success on the field with success in the classroom. It honestly stung when the football team was at the bottom of the conference in academic advancement. It wasn’t everything, but it chipped away at the proud identification with the team.
Thirdly, the identity of Cal football, and the interest of most fans, is firmly rooted in its games against five schools: Stanford (by far and away), USC, UCLA, Oregon and Washington. If all five went to the B1G, Cal would probably want to go, but without a football only deal, I have no belief at all that they would.
What, by the way, was the USB reference in your comment? I assume it was a typo? USC is the university that is generally considered arrogant around here, with Stanford a distant second. Did you mean UCB for Cal?
I honestly believe the university would downgrade football before doing a full move to the B1G, and that is the alternative. All the other sports could survive in a west coast focused conference.
Yes, UCB = Cal to irritate Cal alums and fans. Cal was the founding school in the UC system and they prefer to be called “Cal” rather than UC Berkeley/UCB esp when it comes to athletics. Those of us associated with other UC schools (I’m with UC San Diego/UCSD) like to get digs in to Cal alums/fans referring to Cal as UCB. UCB term reflects them as one of many UC universities in the UC system while referring them as Cal reflects the historical predominance as the founding school in the system and their place what they feel is at the very top of the system in all ways.
BTW- was Leach the coach at Cal when the football team had such low academic ratings? I know that was a shock to many of us familiar with the academic standards at Cal and how difficult it is to get admitted there. I consider the school to be Ivy League/Stanford/NU level of excellence academically.
Last edited:
Thanks for pointing out the errors. Somehow I associated Leach with Cal. Sonny Dykes was the coach at the time I attended the NU game at Cal.
If that happened, Mr Ryan could keep his new stadium money in his pocket, and we could play our home games in Deering Meadow.
Well if those non-revenue sports are mad at the football team now, wait until Cal is in the mountain west and making half as much as they are making now. Many of those non-revenue sports will cease to exist.
I like to remind people that there was a time when Army was the most feared team in America. People like to base these decisions solely on which programs are good today. That can, and will change over time.
Sure but the programs that are good right now and are willing to compete on NIL are in a different plane than the programs that won't.
Even if Oregon is "new money" for example, they can sustain this because they're all in on NIL and effectively paying/buying high end recruits.
Cal is never going to do that. Hence any Cal resurrection is unlikely.
Cal's basically a non-factor in realignment as a result of that.
Similar threads
