goosebumps wrote:

Pick6 wrote: ^thats why you have a conference championship game. example: florida and bama last year.

The Big 12 has a conference championship game and look at what happened the year before last.... still not a "true" champion.

Any conference that has a three way title for a title doesn't have a "true" champion but has to pick one. For some reason, people still act like Oklahoma somehow robbed Texas, but remember that those two and Texas Tech each went 1-1 against each other. In the Big XII, the eventual tiebreaker came down to BCS standings. In other conferences, a three way tie under the same circumstances would have ended up with a coin-flip playoff. Would that make a team a more "true" champion?

I don't like the championship games either. I know it adds excitement to the end of the conference season, but I don't like it. If you have 10 teams in a conference, you play nine, and still have your three out of conference games. Then there's really no dispute about a champion in my opinion.

SportsAndLady wrote:

mucalum49 wrote:Thoughts??

My thoughts are that I have heard enough talks about expansion, that I simply do not care about it until its actually 100% signed sealed and delivered.

What are your thoughts on Kansas football this season?

West Virginia is nowhere near a good enough school to join the Big Ten. That just will not happen.

The Big 10 has to consider other sports as well. Their TV channel doesnt just show football. The teams mentioned in the first post bring a great deal of credibility in other sports. Pitt and Cuse in Basketball and Missouri and Nebraska in wrestling (which is by far THE Big 10 sport...NCAA wrestling has always been dominated by the Big 10).

I like the teams mentioned...just not in 4 divisions. 2 Divisions would be perfect.

ksig489 wrote: The Big 10 has to consider other sports as well. Their TV channel doesnt just show football. The teams mentioned in the first post bring a great deal of credibility in other sports. Pitt and Cuse in Basketball and Missouri and Nebraska in wrestling (which is by far THE Big 10 sport...NCAA wrestling has always been dominated by the Big 10).

I like the teams mentioned...just not in 4 divisions. 2 Divisions would be perfect.

The Big 8/Big 12 might disagree with you on who has dominated wrestling.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NCAA_Wrestling_Team_Championship

Looks to me like by Big 10 he meant Iowa.

I've personally never been a fan of conference championship games. You have years where your two or three best teams are in the same division (think Big XII two years ago with Texas, Texas Tech, and Oklahoma all with one loss and all in the Big XII South. Only one got to play a Missouri team that wasn't as good as the two teams left out in the conference title game). Conference title games create too great of a possibility of the third of fourth best team in a conference winning the conference title.

If the Big Ten does go to 16 teams, I really don't understand the whole four division thing. I don't think that they could have three post-season conference playoff games for football. I assumed it would be two, eight team divisions. That way in football you'd play the seven other teams in your division every year and two teams from the other division on a rotation, leaving you with three non-conference games, and in basketball you'd play the other seven division teams twice and the other 8 teams once.

Four divisions makes no sense to me at all.

krambman wrote: I've personally never been a fan of conference championship games. You have years where your two or three best teams are in the same division (think Big XII two years ago with Texas, Texas Tech, and Oklahoma all with one loss and all in the Big XII South. Only one got to play a Missouri team that wasn't as good as the two teams left out in the conference title game). Conference title games create too great of a possibility of the third of fourth best team in a conference winning the conference title.

If the Big Ten does go to 16 teams, I really don't understand the whole four division thing. I don't think that they could have three post-season conference playoff games for football. I assumed it would be two, eight team divisions. That way in football you'd play the seven other teams in your division every year and two teams from the other division on a rotation, leaving you with three non-conference games, and in basketball you'd play the other seven division teams twice and the other 8 teams once.

Four divisions makes no sense to me at all.

Do you think they would go to 9 conference games 3 non-conference? Right now, they only play 8 conference and 4 non-conference.

Al Bundy wrote:

krambman wrote: I've personally never been a fan of conference championship games. You have years where your two or three best teams are in the same division (think Big XII two years ago with Texas, Texas Tech, and Oklahoma all with one loss and all in the Big XII South. Only one got to play a Missouri team that wasn't as good as the two teams left out in the conference title game). Conference title games create too great of a possibility of the third of fourth best team in a conference winning the conference title.

If the Big Ten does go to 16 teams, I really don't understand the whole four division thing. I don't think that they could have three post-season conference playoff games for football. I assumed it would be two, eight team divisions. That way in football you'd play the seven other teams in your division every year and two teams from the other division on a rotation, leaving you with three non-conference games, and in basketball you'd play the other seven division teams twice and the other 8 teams once.

Four divisions makes no sense to me at all.

Do you think they would go to 9 conference games 3 non-conference? Right now, they only play 8 conference and 4 non-conference.

Yes, I do. Right now the Big East plays seven conference games, Pac-10 plays nine, and everyone else plays eight. I really don't think it would be a big deal to add one additional conference game. I don't see ho you could do two eight team divisions and not play everyone in your division and only playing one team from the other division each year is a joke. Maybe that's why they are planning on doing four, four team divisions. Then you could play the other three teams in your division, and then all four from another division on a rotation. Then maybe if division A and B play each other one year then the best team from all eight will play in the title game. I don't know, I'm still trying to wrap my head around how that would work.

I really don't think that cutting out games with schools like Youngstown State, San Diego State, and Easter Michigan will hurt to conference financially. You play two cupcakes out of conference, one other BCS school, and nine conference games. It would probably bring in more money for the conference since you aren't sharing as much ticket revenue with outside schools.

krambman wrote:

Al Bundy wrote:

krambman wrote: I've personally never been a fan of conference championship games. You have years where your two or three best teams are in the same division (think Big XII two years ago with Texas, Texas Tech, and Oklahoma all with one loss and all in the Big XII South. Only one got to play a Missouri team that wasn't as good as the two teams left out in the conference title game). Conference title games create too great of a possibility of the third of fourth best team in a conference winning the conference title.

If the Big Ten does go to 16 teams, I really don't understand the whole four division thing. I don't think that they could have three post-season conference playoff games for football. I assumed it would be two, eight team divisions. That way in football you'd play the seven other teams in your division every year and two teams from the other division on a rotation, leaving you with three non-conference games, and in basketball you'd play the other seven division teams twice and the other 8 teams once.

Four divisions makes no sense to me at all.

Do you think they would go to 9 conference games 3 non-conference? Right now, they only play 8 conference and 4 non-conference.

Yes, I do. Right now the Big East plays seven conference games, Pac-10 plays nine, and everyone else plays eight. I really don't think it would be a big deal to add one additional conference game. I don't see ho you could do two eight team divisions and not play everyone in your division and only playing one team from the other division each year is a joke. Maybe that's why they are planning on doing four, four team divisions. Then you could play the other three teams in your division, and then all four from another division on a rotation. Then maybe if division A and B play each other one year then the best team from all eight will play in the title game. I don't know, I'm still trying to wrap my head around how that would work.

I really don't think that cutting out games with schools like Youngstown State, San Diego State, and Easter Michigan will hurt to conference financially. You play two cupcakes out of conference, one other BCS school, and nine conference games. It would probably bring in more money for the conference since you aren't sharing as much ticket revenue with outside schools.

One reason I am not sure it would happen is because you lose a home game every other year. I would like to see more conference games, but I am not sure how many teams in the Big 10 want to play 5 conference road games every other year.