End of Divisions Not a Done Deal
- Thread starter retired711
- Start date
Before deciding to reply to this, I checked your reply history. I went ten deep before giving up on trying to find a post that wasn't negative. So I'll stop debating with you since there's no chance of finding neutral territory. In your world, everyone else is dumber than you, including the people that do this stuff for a living. Congratulations on your high self esteem.
Winning argument there, Lou. Yes the league will have pity on our self-inflicted non-competitive team and give us an easier schedule. If you believe that’s a reasonable thing, then yes, you ain’t winning very many IQ comparisons….well, against humans at least.
BTW if you see value in looking up post history, I will save you some time. no you won’t find any positive thoughts from me about Schiano. Maybe look at the hoops forum, since you have so much free time
BTW if you see value in looking up post history, I will save you some time. no you won’t find any positive thoughts from me about Schiano. Maybe look at the hoops forum, since you have so much free time
It’s slowly turning out Jerry Maguire was right: Less Teams, Less Money
The rush to expand for more and more money is ruining conferences and scheduling.
NFL divisions work because everyone plays the same record (except 1 game out of 16, now 2 out of 17).
What’s the plan: a 9 game conference schedule that is going to be radically different from team to team. And then just picking 2?
One 16 team “division” is a terrible idea.
Best idea would be 4 4-team divisions.
But then you need a 4 team Big Ten conference tourney to determine a conference champ.
Saying no more expansion "for now" doesn't mean much IMHO. If a good opportunity comes along, the Big Ten will grab it. If Notre Dame were to call tomorrow and say, we want to join the Big Ten, then I'm sure the Big Ten would expand.
Lol Warren is gonna expand once the TV networks tell him to. By 2030 the B1G will have 20 teams in it.
That or if the TV networks want the Bay Area market, they'll grab Stanford/Cal or the Pacific NW, they'll grab Oregon/Washington. It's when, not if.
Eventually 24
Illinois,
Indiana,
Iowa,
Maryland
, Michigan,
MINNESOTA,
Nebraska,
Wisconsin,
Michigan State,
Northwestern,
Ohio State
Penn State
Purdue,
Rutgers.
USC
UCLA
Oregon
Washington
California
Stanford
Kansas
Kansas St
North Carolina
Virginia
Illinois,
Indiana,
Iowa,
Maryland
, Michigan,
MINNESOTA,
Nebraska,
Wisconsin,
Michigan State,
Northwestern,
Ohio State
Penn State
Purdue,
Rutgers.
USC
UCLA
Oregon
Washington
California
Stanford
Kansas
Kansas St
North Carolina
Virginia
Three 8 team divisions? Play all 7 in division then 1 from each other division?
3 division winners in a playoff for conference champ (2 v. 3 - winner plays 1 in CCG)?
Scratch K-State and add Arizona or Colorado (Arizona/Colorado are AAU, K-State is not) and I'd be 100% on board with that.
Article is paywall but you can see the info in the tweet. I don’t think it will happen but there was also mention of uneven permanent rivals. So for example a school like Iowa (their preference of Minn, Wisc, Neb) might have 3, Michigan (their two main rivals) 2, USC/UCLA 1, PSU (has no preference) 0. For competitive reasons, I don’t see that happening but it was mentioned. RU can have IU, NW, Purdue, our natural rivals lol. 😉
I agree . . . but the key question is whether we will have permanent rivals and who they will be. My guess is Maryland and Penn State.
LeapinLou said:
As is, Rutgers and Maryland, despite having teams that would consistently beat 1/2 the teams playing in bowl games. Don't know about Md. but no way RU beats half the bowl teams. Yikes!
As is, Rutgers and Maryland, despite having teams that would consistently beat 1/2 the teams playing in bowl games. Don't know about Md. but no way RU beats half the bowl teams. Yikes!
Similar threads
Latest posts
-
The Official “Worst Weekend in Rutgers Athletics History” Thread
- Latest: KnightLife1994
-
