16 Team Conference is GOOD!

Submitted by maddogcody on
Why not one more conference expansion post since we're on the topic? My idea works best with a 16 team conference. The Big Ten conference will be renamed to something more fitting, perhaps the Big $ Conference. There will be 16 teams in the conference, separated into two divisions mostly according to existing rivalries, but also geographically. East: Illinois, Indiana, Michigan St., Northwestern, Notre Dame, Penn St., Pitt and Purdue West: Cincinnati, Iowa, Michigan, Minnesota, Missouri, Nebraska, Ohio St., Wisconsin Each team will play seven division games per year. Four additional games allowed (including intra-conference opponents in other division to honor rivalries if desired) per team to bring total number of games played during the "regular season" to 11. The 12th game of the year for each team will be held in the eight largest stadiums in the conference (currently Michigan, Penn St., Ohio St., Nebraska, Notre Dame, Wisconsin, Missouri, and Michigan St) a week after Thanksgiving. The matchups will be determined by the divisional finish of each team (1st vs. 1st, 2nd vs 2nd, and so on). The stadium used for each matchup will be decided by the coaches the Saturday after Thanksgiving, with a focus on neutrality (unless the teams already played… then the loser of the previous matchup will have to travel to their opponents stadium for the rematch). The conferences are relatively balanced, though the West may be slightly better than the East. As a Michigan fan, this seems very enticing. We would be able to continue playing our rivalry games and still schedule two scrub MAC teams without seeing a large drop in strength of schedule. This would help in our overall record when it came to the end of year matchup against the other division. I’d love to see Michigan play against Nebraska every year, and wouldn’t mind Cincinnati and Missouri every year as well. Also, we would be able to continue playing Ohio State as our last "regular season" game of the year. Furthermore, we wouldn't have years where we wouldn't be able to play against Minnesota. Best of all, we would be able to choose whether or not we wanted to play against Michigan St. and Notre Dame each year - I would always choose YES!!! Notes: Rutgers, Connecticut, Syracuse, or West Virginia, etc. instead of the teams I used could also be possible. The teams I chose seem to work best IMHO. Wikipedia was used as the source for the majority of the information in this post. Please note that information in Wikipedia is not always accurate. Rivalry information: EAST - (divisional rivals) [conference rivals in other division] {out of conference rivals}: Illinois - (Northwestern and Purdue) [Ohio St. and Missouri] Indiana - (Purdue and Michigan St) {Kentucky} Northwestern - (Illinois, Notre Dame) Purdue – (Notre Dame, Indiana, Illinois) Penn St. – (Pitt, Notre Dame, and Michigan St) [Minnesota and Ohio St.] {West Virginia, Syracuse, Maryland, Temple, and Rutgers} Notre Dame – (Northwestern, Penn St., Pitt, Purdue) [Michigan, Michigan St., and Nebraska] {USC, Navy, Boston College, Stanford, Air Force, Army, and GT} Pitt – (Notre Dame, and Penn St.) [Cincinnati] {Marquette, Syracuse, Villanova, West Virginia} Michigan St. – (Indiana, Notre Dame, and Penn St.) [Michigan] WEST - (divisional rivals) [conference rivals in other division] {out of conference rivals}: Iowa – (Minnesota and Wisconsin) {Iowa St.} Minnesota – (Iowa, Michigan, Wisconsin) [Penn St.] Wisconsin – (Iowa, Minnesota) {Marquette} Michigan – (Minnesota and Ohio St.) [Michigan St. and Notre Dame] Ohio St. – (Michigan) [Illinois, Penn St.] Nebraska – (Missouri) {Oklahoma and Colorado} Missouri – (Nebraska) [Illinois] {Kansas} Cincinnati – (Ohio St.) [Pitt] {Louisville, Kentucky and Miami-OH}

willywill9

April 21st, 2010 at 7:33 AM ^

The "West" is stacked. Iowa, Michigan, Ohio State, Wisconsin? I think one or two would have to be swapped out (probably Ohio State). And also:
The stadium used for each matchup will be decided by the coaches the Saturday after Thanksgiving, with a focus on neutrality (unless the teams already played… then the loser of the previous matchup will have to travel to their opponents stadium for the rematch).
The problem with this is folks buying tickets and making travel arrangements last minute. This game would just have to be on a neutral site, probably at a professional stadium.

maddogcody

April 21st, 2010 at 7:52 AM ^

These are things I considered. I just can't think of who to move out of the West to even it up with the East. It's the middle tear teams that don't stack up well. Although, wouldn't that provide Notre Dame more incentive to join the conference? I think Ohio State and Michigan belong in the same conference, so until someone provides me with a better alternative, it stays. As for playing at pro stadiums. Take Heinz and Ford Field for example... under 70k seats. I'd take the Big Ten's top three stadiums over those. This is the reason why I leave it up to the coaches to decide, I'm sure they will choose the sites that are best for their fans and their own travel arangements.

learmanj

April 21st, 2010 at 9:05 AM ^

I honestly think Central Michigan could compete in the Big Ten, especially after a couple years. I think a lot of recruits like CMU but end up going to a place like IU, NW, or Purdue because they are in the Big Ten compared to the MAC. I mean CMU did beat that thuggy team that plays in East Lansing.

blueheron

April 21st, 2010 at 11:18 AM ^

I'm pretty sure that Miami is the only school that has any business being in the Big 10 academically. I could be wrong, though -- I missed on UConn yesterday. (I had no clue that they were in the Top 100 schools in the US News & World Report ranking.)

Don

April 21st, 2010 at 7:45 AM ^

When you've got Michigan, OSU, and Cincy in the West and Illinois, IU, NW, ND, and Purdue in the East, I'm not sure you have a good hold on that geography thing.

Blazefire

April 21st, 2010 at 8:31 AM ^

because Sparty and ND are in the other division. Right now, Sparty isn't allowed to avoid us for beatdowns, and ND is contractually obligated. Can you imagine if Sparty just said, "We're tired of losing so we're not going to play you anymore"?

maddogcody

April 21st, 2010 at 9:17 AM ^

A long while back, Michigan and Chicago used to play on Thanksgiving weekend. This game often decided the conference champion. There was a brief period where Michigan and Notre Dame did not play annually in the not so distant past. Things change. If Sparty wants to avoid playing Michigan, it is possible that they would be forced to meet up in the 12th game anyway. Then the mudhole stompage in Sparty's rear would commence!!!

Wolverine Gator

April 21st, 2010 at 10:49 AM ^

We'll see how batty this is, but here goes... With 16 teams, we know that a team will only realistically be able to play half the conference any year if they want to schedule any non-conference games. We also have to try and take into account traditional rivalries. Everyone hates the NFL, but what if they maybe have something slightly right? Below are four four team divisions. - On a yearly basis, each team would play every team in their division so that's 3 games. - Then, each team will play every team in another division for four more games. The divisions will rotate yearly so the North would play the East in year 1, the West in year 2 and the Central in year 3. This way you at worst see a time once every three years. That's now 7 conference games. - One more game would be reserved for a traditional rival. Ie. Michgan would use this game to play Ohio State. If this were a year where the north played the Central division, Michigan could reschedule another rival. - Finally, game 9 would be played against a team that finished the previous year in the same place in their division as you. So if the North were playing every team in the Central then the team that finished first in the North the previous year would play the last year's first place team in the East. - The last three games would be reserved for out of conference play with possibly the caveat that at least one of them be against a BCS conference opponent. Again, this is hopefully preserving traditional rivalries, making sure you don't go too long without playing any one team and it also makes it so your schedule would be set before the start of the season so there'd be no logistical issues to work out midseason with scrambling up who plays who and where. The conference winner would be the division winner with the best conference record with tiebreakers being head to head, record vs common opponents, division record and then point differential. North Michigan Michigan State Wisconsin Minnesota East Penn State Pittsburgh Indiana Purdue Central Notre Dame Ohio State Northwestern Cincinnati West Missouri Nebraska Iowa Illinois

M2NASA

April 21st, 2010 at 11:22 AM ^

Cincinnati? UConn? Boston College? And then throwing out MAC schools? Wow, the darts flying at the dart board are getting continuously and increasingly ridiculous. None are AAU schools. The Big Ten is not taking a non-AAU school this side of Notre Dame when there are enough that are advantageous to take. And the Big Ten's analysis from their contracted firm was five schools: Pittsburgh, Syracuse, Notre Dame, Rutgers, Missouri. There's your five candidates for 16 teams. I'll be floored if anyone is taken not in that group. And also, why is everyone assuming the Big 12 would let their teams be poached lying down even if one of their prizes like Texas or Nebraska are offered? They have unbalanced revenue sharing already, and there's plenty of latitude contractually. And consider also that Nebraska would be leaving behind established rivalries with Oklahoma and Colorado, not to mention emerging ones with Texas and Kansas.