Jim Delany: Big Ten should have 9-game conference schedule
by Brian Floyd on Aug 3, 2010 10:27 AM PDT
Email
PrintPart of the reason I thought an eight game conference schedule for the Pac-12 was attractive stemmed from the fact that every other conference with a divisional alignment had one. There had to have been a reason -- even though I couldn't put my finger on exactly why -- that the Big 12, SEC, Mid-American conference, and ACC all chose eight game slates.
Larry Scott and Big Ten commissioner Jim Delany both appear to be going against the grain, with Delany outwardly advocating a nine game schedule at the Big Ten media day.
The push for adding a ninth game to the Big Ten Conference football schedule received an influential nudge Monday afternoon.
"I think that would be really helpful to us," commissioner Jim Delany told reporters. "I think there's a consensus among our athletic directors to do that.
"We can't do that in the next year or two, but I'm hopeful we can make some progress in years three and four. Hopefully, it's not more than that."
Jim Delany is a smart man. He's lead the Big Ten in a period where the conference -- and the schools within -- have become incredibly lucrative. The Big Ten Network was brilliant and his subtle moves toward expansion started the wheels turning for the rest of the conference. If he's pushing for a nine game schedule, maybe there's something to it.
Maybe the newly expanded conferences -- the Pac-10 and Big Ten -- are being progressive in their thinking and giving the fans what they want.
We detailed the scheduling debate here, and much of this still rings true. After having time to reflect, the "beating up on each other" aspect comes into play more for fringe bowl teams than teams vying for the BCS. Pleasing everyone in the conference -- and preserving rivalries -- will also be impossible with an 8 game schedule, but at least plausible with nine.
For WSU, the priority should be placed into gaining equal revenue sharing, an alignment that works, and then deciding an eight or nine game schedule. I've realized lately that the number of conference games is small in the scheme of the other decisions. If we can walk out of the meetings with equal footing and an alignment that keeps the Northwest schools intact, the decision about conference games becomes a small issue.
28 comments
|
0 recs |
Do you like this story?
Comments
I still think we need to have two California schools in our division
If that doesn’t happen, we run the risk of becoming “that division up there” — and a lesser division, to boot — to recruits in California.
Agreed.
And I only really see one alignment floated that does that. Unfortunately, it’s the geographic alignment Wilner thinks has traction (CU and Utah in the North).
I still don’t like the zipper much, but even that alignment accomplishes that.
Wilner can think whatever he likes
Fact is there won’t be a single happy school in the north division in that situation (excluding Utah, they seem to be happy with just about anything right now). And what kind of concessions could they possibly offer to all of the north schools? short of a 70/30 TV AND Gate split (for ALL Pac-10 games) I don’t see it happening.
Jon Wilner is usually a insightful blogger, but I wouldn’t put it past him to be another one of those “California schools will never be split up” die hards, especially since he’s based in the bay area, and probably wants the attachment to LA schools for his local teams. He’ll be looking for any piece of a quote to hint at a true geographic, north south split. I simply don’t buy it
When he says It's gaining traction with NW schools
then I’ll be worried
Am I getting wooshed?
There had to have been a reason — even though I couldn’t put my finger on exactly why — that the Big 12, SEC, Mid-American conference, and ACC all chose 8 game slates.
Look at how most of the teams in those conferences schedule OOC games. More cupcakes than a Hostess bakery. More directional names than a Rand-McNally map. Half the teams in those conferences enter conference play needing 2 or 3 wins to get bowl-eligible, without ever leaving the comfy confines of thier own stadiums.
No and I get that.
But from a money standpoint I figured there had to be something to it. The SEC can sell out a home game against East-Western State, but the same doesn’t hold true across all those conferences. The Mid-American can take another paycheck game, but of course it wouldn’t be a free win.
I was looking for a reason across all lines that everyone chose 8. It’s a combination of paycheck games, more home games, and free wins. Maybe I’m looking at it wrong in trying to find a reason that fits all those conferences.
8 conference games used to be the norm.
And with few exceptions, everybody played 11 regular season games. When the 12-game schedule became the standard, the Pac 10 was the only (or at least first) conference that made that 12th game a conference game.
What do your combination of things all have in common? More money. It all comes back to the ducats.
Looking at it from a different angle
Fast forward 20 years and the Pac-12/WSU has had 15+ years of an 8 game conference schedule and 4 patsy OOC games, leading to bowl games in 10+ seasons, would that be so bad? Doesn’t it seem like more of a problem now because we can’t or haven’t been able to do that historically?
by Nicky Glasses on Aug 3, 2010 11:36 AM PDT up reply actions
Kind of sounds like you're setting your sights pretty low.
At some point, you just have to win conference games.
Would you really be happy with a Cougar team that beat four nobodies out of the conference, but went 2-6 in against the Pac 12? Does that really sound like a bowl-worthy team?
You misunderstood what the intention of my question was
My question was to ask that if the Cougs were able to string together a myriad of successful bowl bound teams over the next 20 years, would it matter who our out of conference games were against?
Which schedule would we be more likely to see success at? Our current situation of 9 conf games and 3 OOC games with at least one real good test every year, or one less conf game and an easy OOC schedule.
IMO, the only real reason you schedule tough OOC games is for money, or resume for a BCS berth. Hopefully a new TV deal will make money less of a reason, and frankly our BCS chances are the least of our worries right now.
by Nicky Glasses on Aug 3, 2010 3:03 PM PDT up reply actions
No, I understood it.
And it hinges on your definition of success.
Look at UCLA this season. 3-6 in the Pac 10, good enough for 8th place. But, because they won their (mostly soft) out of conference games, they managed to finish 6-6 during the regular season, beat Temple in a meaningless bowl, and finish 7-6. Yes, they won a bowl and finished with a winning record. But does that make up for a near-bottom conference finish and a .333 winning percentage?
Good luck with that
Based on that definition compared to Cougar history, you will be witness to a tremendous number of unsuccessful seasons
by Nicky Glasses on Aug 3, 2010 5:02 PM PDT up reply actions
I see you are likely a Husky fan
so you’re likely still thinking that the Huskies are gonna recreate their success of the 80’s and early 90’s. Chances of that happening are extremely slim, and I say this due to scholarship restrictions not due to any sort of bias
by Nicky Glasses on Aug 3, 2010 5:06 PM PDT up reply actions
No, it doesn't
But for years SEC teams have been using that system and have been going to bowl games with similar records. And I don’t hear any of them complaining.
But the fact of the matter is I don’t see us putting an end to the 9 game conference schedule. It will generate the most money and exposure for the conference while allowing us to satisfy everyone’s need to maintain rivalries and exposure to recruits.
I think what Delany is seeing is that the income from an extra lowest-tier bowl for a 6-6 team is less than the TV income the Big Ten might pull in with 6 more conference games instead of 6 “C” games.qq
And here's where I get hung up
He gets 6 conference games, but it’s at the cost of 12 non-conference games, of which nobody can predict whether they’ll be premier or “C” games.
What are the rules on divisions and a conference championship?
I know this sounds crazy, but can we have 3 divisions similar to the NFL?
West (or NW) Division – UW, WSU, OU, OSU
Central (or Coastal) Division – Stan, Cal, USC, UCLA
East Division – UA, ASU, UU, CU
This may keep everyone happy, because everyone gets to keep their rivalries in tact and no one outside of California gets more California exposure than the other schools, which is causing an uproar. Yes, the CA schools get a little advantage, but they already have that advantage anyways, but it keeps UA, ASU, UU and CU out of California as much as the NW schools. You play everyone in your division and 3 teams from the other two, but it makes it hard to figure out a conference championship. Maybe 8 games, with best team out of the 3 divisions getting a bye (or faces the wildcard) and the other 2 division winners play to see who faces the best team. Then the problem is one (or both) of the last two teams would have 10 conference games under their belt and be exhausted for the upcoming bowl game. It was just a thought, maybe someone else can figure out a better combo from this. A couple days ago I suggested a round robin style with a conference championship, but according to the NCAA we have to have divisions. Maybe the 3 divisions can be done somehow and keep everyone happy. Any suggestions off this design? Or you can look at the 3 division idea as a more structured zipper format. The games at the end would help revenue, instead of OOC cupcake games. I got this idea because of Delany suggesting 9 conference games, which means 10 because they have to have a conference championship.
"They've done studies, you know. 60% of the time it works, every time." - Brian Fantana
I read somewhere it's against NCAA bylaws to have more than two divisions.
I don’t know if it’s true or not.
The WAC had that back in the 90's.
16 teams, 4 pods. It may have been more of a scheduling technique than a formal division, though.
by spencer peaty on Aug 3, 2010 2:35 PM PDT up reply actions
How would that play out for the PAC?
I could see a NW, Cali, Mtn. set-up, where you play all 3 of your podmates and a certain number (4-6) of the other teams. For a conference championship I guess you’d just take the top two teams and have them play, unless the NCAA has some rule that makes you have two divisions in order to have a championship game.
Play 8 conference games
The team with the best record of the 3 divisions plays the wildcard (the next best record like the MLB & NFL) and the other 2 division winners play each other. Winner of these 2 games meet in the conference championship. That would give 2 teams 10 conference games and the other 2 teams 9. The 8 teams that didn’t make it would only have played 8 conference games. The more I think about it the 3 divisions would make it hard for the BCS, because schools could end up playing more games than other schools, but on the flip side this already happens because of the championship games in other conferences. There is already discrepancies for instance WSU (&UW) only played 12 games last year and some SEC teams (for example) played 14 games. With the 3 divisions the winner (& runner up) of the Pac12 could play 14 games — (8) conference games, (3) non-conference, (2) games to determine the Pac12 champion and (1) bowl game.
"They've done studies, you know. 60% of the time it works, every time." - Brian Fantana
This does mean less conference games on the Pac12 network
which could lower revenue, but the 2 games to determine the champion could make a lot of revenue and would definitely crown a true champion. They most likely wouldn’t have any trouble become the BCS champs.
"They've done studies, you know. 60% of the time it works, every time." - Brian Fantana
I have fallen in love with this idea...
I hated it at first, but in thinking about it more, I think it might actually help force college football toward a playoff and benefit the P12 in the meantime.
Like you say, with three divisions, you’d have to have a mini-playoff to determine who goes to the championship game. So like baseball, you’d take each mini-division winner and one wild card. They play off to get into the conference championship game, then you have the championship game. If that were to happen, you’d see the P12 champion having a seriously high strength of schedule, because they would get not only the conference championship game boost but also the conference semi boost. Every team could schedule only 11 guaranteed games. Have of 7 of them be conference games (3 in division, 2 against each of the other divisions), along with 4 nonconference. The champion ends up playing 9 conference games, four nonconference, plus a bowl game. (This assumes they can play 14 total.) And because our champion has such a great strength of schedule, our champion has a really great shot at getting to the BCS title game, even with one (or two) losses.
It’s a de facto playoff system. I guess that would not guarantee a game in LA every year. But if the semifinal games were held in LA, then that would alleviate that problem. Plus, you’d hit each "region." UW would play WSU, OSU, UO, (Cal or Stan), (UCLA or USC), (ASU or UA), and (Col or Ut). The California schools are happy because all four traditional rivalry games are intact.
You could even solve the problem of the lost 12 games for the bad teams teams by having consolation games. If there are four semifinalists, there are 8 nonqualifiers. Those teams could play against the other nonqualifiers that they didn’t play earlier in the year for a 12th game. Hell, you could even put those games in LA if playing in LA is as precious as the coaches are making out.
Seriously, what is bad about this plan? If I were commish…
by Pman on Aug 3, 2010 5:27 PM PDT via mobile up reply actions
One way to split the divisions
And keep the NW schools intact and make sure that everyone has access to SoCal is to go with the Pac12Cooler.com method.
Comments For This Post Are Closed
Secondary Sidebar
User Tools
Community Guidelines
Related FanPosts on CougCenter
FanPosts
Community blog posts and discussion.
Recent FanPosts
FanShots
Quick hits of video, photos, quotes, chats, links and lists that you find around the web.
Recommended FanShots
Certain photos copyright © 2012 by Associated Press or Getty Images. Any commercial use or distribution without the express written consent of Associated Press and Getty Images is strictly prohibited.
