First of all, I'm not a college football writer. I hate talking about the business side of the sport, NIL, TV rights deals, etc. I'm a kid at heart who loves sports and hates the business aspect.
But I do love the games. The tradition. The uniforms. The clashes of playing styles. Air Raid vs. smash-mouth. Option vs. pro style. David vs. Goliath.
So if you want a discussion of how this opens up the Seattle TV market and increases the payout for the people in Piscataway, go somewhere else.
Otherwise, hit the jump.
What I do know is that the Big Ten in 2024 will consist of the following schools (new additions at the end):
- Illinois (1896)
- Indiana (1899)
- Iowa (1899)
- Maryland (2014)
- Michigan (1917)
- Michigan State (1950)
- Minnesota (1896)
- Nebraska (2011)
- Northwestern (1896)
- Ohio State (1912)
- Penn State (1990)
- Purdue (1896)
- Rutgers (2014)
- Wisconsin (1896)
- Oregon (2024)
- UCLA (2024)
- USC (2024)
- Washington (2024)
Luckily, Wordpress did the counting for me and totaled up eighteen teams. Yeah, the Big Ten moniker went kaput back in 1990, but it gets even sillier by the decade. Now there are going to be 18 teams in the conference, and even if you play zero non-conference games in a regular season, there are still going to be four teams you can't possibly play in a given year. What's the point of being in a conference with a team you never play? Realistically, a nine-game conference schedule will leave even the Big Ten championship game participants playing a maximum of ten opponents, and that's if the BTCG opponents didn't already play in the regular season.
I like Oregon. I don't care much for USC or Washington. I'm indifferent toward UCLA. I don't have much animosity toward any of them because you have to go back several years to find a time when they played Michigan, and the most recent was a 2021 drubbing of Washington. Most of my dislike of Washington probably stems from the Rose Bowl thirty-plus years ago, but that's a reach. I don't know a single Washington or UCLA fan. I know a couple USC and Oregon fans, but they're fleeting. When it comes to talking trash in the workplace, game weeks against those teams - which might not be very often - will be pretty quiet.
As far as competition goes, I . . . hate it. I'm selfish. You can say, "If you want to be the best, you have to beat the best" all you want, but there's something to be said for "Hey, we're Pac-10/Pac-12 conference champs." Every year one out of ten teams could say that. For the past two seasons, Michigan was the one out of fourteen teams who could claim a Big Ten championship. Michigan now has 44 conference championships.
But if you pass around the Big Ten championship baton in a circle - which obviously doesn't happen - a team can only be a conference champion every eighteen years. That's basically a generation. Imagine being a storied Michigan, Ohio State, or USC team and only winning a championship in football once every eighteen years.
Or, worse yet, imagine being Northwestern right now and expecting to get your ass beaten on a weekly basis, even by the newcomers to the conference.
One reason it's frustrating being a Detroit Lions fans - where the league has 32 teams - is that even with the way the NFL draft is set up to allow parity, a fair dispersal of the Lombardi Trophy means a team is only winning one Super Bowl every 32 years. The way it's worked out with the Lions is, they haven't won it. They haven't even played for it.
And now that's coming closer and closer to the reality for the likes of Maryland, Rutgers, Michigan State, maybe UCLA, etc., not to mention Northwestern, Indiana, and others. It's one thing to be the worst out of ten teams. Or twelve. It's another thing to be the worst out of eighteen. And unlike in the NFL draft, where the worst team gets the rights to the first pick, there's no path for Northwestern to climb out of the dungeon.
I get why the Big Ten has to expand. It's an attempt to stay ahead of the SEC, or stay even with the SEC, or at least not turn into the ACC or . . . the Pac-12. But something is wrong with the sport when the big conferences are gobbling up the little ones and making these unwieldy super-conferences.
Brian Cook of MGoBlog was on the "MGoBlog Roundtable" session on WTKA yesterday, and he was royally pissed. His idea for the Big Ten was to make two divisions in the conference (and I'm paraphrasing):
"Make a west division and call it the Pac-10 and make an east division and call it the Big Ten."
I don't know what this will look like for Michigan fans (or other, more traditional, Big Ten fans). I don't particularly want to watch Michigan play at UCLA at 10:45 p.m. EST. Nor do I think it's fair to the student-athletes to expect them to fly all over the country, play games at odd hours, and keep up with their health and schoolwork.
Will it be fun to see Oregon play Michigan? To see USC play Ohio State? To see UCLA play Rutgers? Yes, yes, and no.
Yeah. I like fun.
But everything else about it sucks.
I was firmly against paying players, and was concerned that the money grab would grow out of control ... yikes, the B1G is now the B18
ReplyDeleteNow, it's like Deion Sanders says, and any ideas against paying players - even the union effort I was against when NW tried - is hypocritical ... the college gameay be unrecognizable in a few years
Here's a guess at what may happen:
Oregon's brand keeps it afloat, and they're the most relevant newcomer
UCLA & UW become Rutger & Maryland, respectively
SC is a wildcard. They have the resources to be PennSt, but it's been a long time. Don't know how the travel will impact them
I think every B1G team benefits from this. Anyone not in super conference is left out. Rutgers is so dang lucky lol
DeleteThere's a difference between travel from LA to Tempe one week, and then Berkeley the next (or even two weeks later, and going from Piscataway to Ann Arbor & back, and then out to Eugene
DeleteAgree from a financial POV the schools will benefit. More taxing on the players though
As a west coast based guy I love it. As a guy who appreciates tradition... Well, we have Nebraska, Penn State, and Maryland. That ship sailed already.
ReplyDeleteFlight times in luxury charter plane are still less difficult than the kids used to deal with taking buses to Madison or Minneapolis.
Absolutely should have divisions or even pods of 4-6, especially If they can find a couple more teams to take.
Usc/UCLA/OR/Wa
Nebraska/Iowa/minn/WI
Ill/NW/Purdue/Ind/MSU
MD/PSU/rutgers/OSU/UM
Think of it more like a league than a conference.
In general anything that makes college football more like US pro sports is bad imo. Super conference seem like a move towards that but it's already the direction people have called for. I would prefer a collection of regional based conferences but others want national narrative and clarity with a post season playoff focus. I feel like war for tradition is lost already so might as well have fun. Games vs these 4 pac schools are fun imo, more fun than Maryland, Nebraska, psu and Rutgers
DeleteMy fear with super conferences is that it will kill off teams #60-131 that are currently in the FBS. I mean, there are still DII and DIII football teams, so I'm not saying those teams will cease to exist. But if the FBS teams in super conferences are all busy playing each other and eating up all the money, what happens to the 89th best team or the 110th best team currently in FBS? It's basically going to turn FCS into Division II, Division II into Division III, Division III into Division IV, super conference teams into Division 1-A, and non-super conferences teams into Division 1-AA.
Delete"My fear with super conferences is that it will kill off teams #60-131 that are currently in the FBS."
DeleteIt is almost certain to happen. Not right away (1 to 5 years), but eventually (10+ years.)
"I mean, there are still DII and DIII football teams, so I'm not saying those teams will cease to exist."
This is why I'm watching what happens to Cal and their football program. I think there's probably a segment of academia that would love to get rid of football if they could, they're just looking for an excuse. I think former UM president Mark Schlissel was in that camp, if you could get him to be honest for a moment. If the opportunities arise to drop football under cover of a good excuse, they might just take it. It's not a certainty, but it's a possibility.
@Lanl 2:33, I am a West Coast guy too (Sacramento). Pac12 is bad football, and games after 9PM are almost always for junkies like us ... ratings probably won't get much better, not if fans are watching at 9AM on the East Coast
Delete@Thunder, we may all be FCS fans some day
DeleteThunder, I don't really see a problem with the hierarchy since we already have it. The 100th best team is still the 100th best team. With expansion D1 has grown and everyone knows Eastern Michigan isn't in the same league as Alabama, Texas, or USC. Super conference don't change anything for those low tier schools and buy games aren't really good for anything other than the local economy
DeleteJe, I doubt we'll see night games hosted by the Pacific time schools against EST or Central Time. Ratings would take a hit. Not gonna happen imo
DeleteMe either, but west coast teams have the night game environment, and won't want to stop. There would be a chunk of conference fans who won't bother to watch. That's a hit
DeleteIf UCLA and Washington want to play at 10pm est they maybe still can. But I'd be very surprised if Oregon at Nebraska is at noon est and PSU at USC starts much after 8pm est.
DeleteThe late late games are rarely marquee and I think the conference will set some parameters to protect ratings
Yeah, they can, but who will watch? Not the rest of the new conference living in EST, whereas in the PAC12, there were ten other fan bases - in the same time zone or only an hour away - that would tune in
Delete2 other fan bases in same time zone still. Lose a few but gain 14 others in other time zones. Ratings were always modest for late games. I'm not sure anything much changes. How many did say UCLA play after 10pm est?
Deletethis is true. A may be conflating allPac12 and MWC night games, a couple ea wek
DeleteAnother turn of this crank is going to be the relegating of lesser teams to some lower tier so the big boys can duke it out in the higher tier. Nobody really cares about Michigan (or Ohio State, or Penn State) playing Rutgers, or Purdue, or Northwestern. I don't know when this might happen, but it's coming.
ReplyDeleteI recall back in 2015 when Harbaugh was first hired, and I was thinking about how college football was changing, and it had entered an 'arms race' scenario. The top teams were starting to soak up the elite talent, and Michigan had better get into the upper tier before the window closed. Thankfully, they did. But it was not inevitable.
The BCS/playoff system started all this. Now with the playoffs expanding, the notion of 'conference champion' is really diminished. Over time -- and it's coming quickly -- someone being their conference champion will be a trivia contest answer; the real goal and real money is getting into the playoffs, and what they do there.
I started in this game back in the early 1970s, where the traditions and rivalries were what mattered. I am nostalgic for those times, but I'm realistic enough to know they are not coming back. That ship has sailed. We are entering a period where college football has become a business, and the business of college football is the business, and less so the game itself.
The Michigan-OSU game will retain some of its cachet, but only if it remains the last game of the season, which it won't. They'll start messing with those things in pursuit of money, and before you know it that game will be played in early October, with us closing our season playing ... whatever team the schedule computer spits out.
All this is happening when the business of college itself is starting to come under intense scrutiny, as it's becoming obvious the cost of a 4-year degree is a very, very bad investment in most cases.
College football ... it's been good knowin' ya.
Yes, college is becoming a very interesting choice for some. It's way too expensive. I have advised a lot of my players to go to community college if they're not having their college paid for by someone else (scholarship, parent investments, etc.). At least get two years of credits out of the way cheaply before investing in years 3 through 4/5/6 at a more expensive school.
DeleteI don't think there's a need to do away with the Purdues and Indianas. I still like those David vs. Goliath story lines, and I don't think the big-time programs really want to beat themselves up against great teams every week. If a team like Michigan wants to stay healthy all year long, they need some occasional rest weeks vs. Indiana, MAC schools, etc. There's a reason that the SEC schools typically have a week 12 game against The Little Sisters of the Poor - so they can be rested up for the season finale and the post-season.
"I don't think the big-time programs really want to beat themselves up against great teams every week."
DeleteI agree with that, but I think a lot of this is going to be dictated by the economic incentives that form with the new alignments. Those 76-0 games are fun to watch for the winning team's fan base, but not for anyone else. I myself love to see Michigan trounce a MAC team, but I don't care a whit about Georgia beating some cupcake. Right now the financial incentives don't punish having those games, but they might as things progress. If a Georgia, or Michigan, gets only $500K for playing a cupcake, but $20M for playing a serious team, guess what will happen eventually?
@ Anonymous 7:52 a.m.
DeleteI think those 76-0 games by themselves can be kind of boring. But when put in context with the other games of the season, not so much. A 76-0 beatdown of a team like Western Michigan or Rutgers can set up some excitement for the next week against Maryland or Illinois. Furthermore, that's how records are set, and it's fun to see records broken (not too often, but once in a while). Rushing records, big play records, winning streaks, passing records, etc.
We don't get the J.J. McCarthy to Daylen Baldwin excitement or the Denard Robinson dropped snap vs. WMU without having some cupcakes.
Anyway, as a high school coach, I want every season to have 1 game where we could get our butts kicked, 1 game where we would probably kick someone else's butt, and then the rest of the games pretty evenly matched. Blowouts are fun for the winning team, blowouts humble you when you're the losing team, and then close games are fun for everyone throughout.
It's going to be interesting to see how the playoff system evolves over time to accommodate all this. The old idea of the top team from each power conference is probably dead. When the most powerful football teams are now coalescing around two conferences (B1G and SEC), it's going to become multiple teams from each of those two conferences with a charitable gesture of an invitation or two to the other conferences.
ReplyDeleteIt's also going to be interesting to see if the selection process changes so teams with a loss later in the season aren't punished as much as they are now. If the quest for "the best teams in the playoffs" continues, then late-season losses will be discounted in favor of some other overall-season metric.
The idea of a "conference championship" game will also diminish. It'll try to hold on for money reasons, but if the teams that would play in those games are going to go to the playoffs anyway, then the those games become less meaningful. My guess is what will happen is those games will get absorbed into the playoff structure in some way. The seeding will probably be set up to get the best teams to advance.
Agreed. I've seen some people suggesting that the Big Ten should move to pods, but with Ohio State and Michigan in the same 5- or 6-team pod. And it's just baffling to me that two of the top teams in the country - according to last year's College Football Playoff - should be sectioned off in a 6-team pod when there are 131 teams in FBS. It's such an odd concentration of power.
Delete"We're going to break up the SEC into four different groups of five teams, but Georgia and Alabama are going to be in the SEC East because...you know...reasons."
They're trying to have their cake and eat it too -- preserve the "regional rivalry" thing while forming up these mega-conferences. It won't work in the long run, but they'll still try it in the short.
DeleteI'm still convinced over time we're going to see a separation of teams further still: the big boys into one grouping, and the little kids in a lower one. Whether they'll go the route the English soccer clubs have of moving up or down based on results, I don't know. But the dream of those who are chasing money is a "conference" with, say, 32 of the best teams, and just raking in the money week after week as those teams feature a great game every single Saturday.
The alternatives to UM-ohio pod are:
Delete1) separating them, but playing anyway. That move is pointless
2) stop the rivalry, and HOPE they meet in the playoffs. What traditionalist wants that?
I don't think those are the only two options. If there are 6 teams in a pod, that's 5 games. You still need another 4-5 games to fill out your conference schedule. So you could still have some "protected" rivalries with built-in games across pods.
DeleteWhat's wrong with concentration of power? That's exactly what super conference are doing.
DeleteNothing inherently wrong with having relatively strong and weak pods within a large conference. We don't have to sort that out in a playoff. College football never has.
We can eat our cake and have it.
The glory of the Game was that it WAS a playoff game. I would hate if that changed
Delete@Thunder, maybe I'm misunderstanding. If UM & ohio are in separate pods, but still play every year, is there a difference?
Delete@ je93 9:25 p.m.
DeleteIt depends on the purpose of the pods. If they're somehow used to determine post-season eligibility (CFP, Big Ten championship tournament, etc.), then I think it matters.
But I also hate that the Big Ten West is such a lame division, and all that generally seems to matter is who wins the Big Ten East - Ohio State or Michigan. It's kind of lame when Iowa, Purdue, etc. don't have a chance to win the Big Ten because all the power is concentrated in the East.
Now you take the MLB approach with West, Central, and East divisions...and OMG Ohio State hasn't even won the Central pod in three years LOL what a bunch of losers!!!!
But really, they're the second best team in the Big Ten, while USC wins the West pod every year and Penn State wins the East pod every year.
(Obviously, I'm projecting, but that's my concern with putting so much power in one pod.)
I just don't see any need to balance these things out. There is no actual problem with the big10 west being inferior to East. Or acc being worse than sec. Always been that way. Never been parity. Certainly not suddenly a problem with smaller pods to organize within a mega conference.
DeleteJust an issue of ratings when they match up but that's of less concern than splitting OSU and Michigan to a diminished rivalry. Both made playoff of 4 so there's no issue unless conference champs are requirement suddenly. ..not happening
If you have a bigger playoff of 12 it doesn't matter. Same teams from the same pod can get in. Pod is there to make regular season about regional bragging rights. Have cake and eat it since playoffs will give every contender a chance to win championship.
Big playoffs take away from regular season. So let's not just have a bunch of random games within mega conference but go back to some regional groups that have local interest and bragging rights regardless of playoff. Keep in mind most teams are not going to be in a playoff so let the other rivalries keep going. Best part of cfb.
DeleteWith a pod you could have bragging rights thru those 5 core games. Then you have 5 flex conference games for general entertainment and fun. Then 2 non conference to do whatever.
Conference championship, if you need to do it, is still be the 2 top ranked pod winners or whatever. Doesn't matter how conference champs are defined anymore with the big playoffs trumping everything. We know that from basketball.