If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(ESPN)   Barry Alvarez of Wisconsin fame says the Big Ten will look for more challenging opponents by not scheduling FCS schools anymore   (espn.go.com) divider line 84
    More: Spiffy, Big Ten, Barry Alvarez, Wisconsin, Tennessee Tech  
•       •       •

903 clicks; posted to Sports » on 13 Feb 2013 at 1:17 PM (1 year ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



84 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | » | Last | Show all
 
2013-02-13 11:46:58 AM
UNI seemed to challenge them a bit last year.
 
2013-02-13 12:34:57 PM
It would be nice if the SEC did this.
 
2013-02-13 01:21:45 PM
The timing coincides nicely with the BCS rankings not mattering anymore. What a hero
 
2013-02-13 01:22:27 PM
cdn.bleacherreport.net

No more cupcakes.
 
2013-02-13 01:23:11 PM
Bottom rung of the MAC is gonna start making even bigger paydays to get crushed.  Eastern Michigan will end up playing more Big Ten games than Purdue.
 
2013-02-13 01:25:45 PM
I was contemplating some headline about "B1G takes steps to ensure Michigan never loses to Appalachian State again."  Curse my slow trigger finger.
 
2013-02-13 01:28:23 PM

HaywoodJablonski: The timing coincides nicely with the BCS rankings not mattering anymore. What a hero

 
2013-02-13 01:30:33 PM

Hillbilly Jim: HaywoodJablonski: The timing coincides nicely with the BCS rankings not mattering anymore. What a hero

 
2013-02-13 01:31:26 PM
I'd take this further. Why not have the Big Ten go to a true round-robin?
 
2013-02-13 01:33:07 PM

Champion of the Sun: Bottom rung of the MAC is gonna start making even bigger paydays to get crushed.  Eastern Michigan will end up playing more Big Ten games than Purdue.


We're playing the Zips next year.
 
2013-02-13 01:34:46 PM
Looks like Illinois might not win any games the next few years.
 
2013-02-13 01:40:43 PM
HOW ABOUT CHANGING THE NAME OF THE "BIG TEN". THERE IS NOT FARKING 10 TEAMS ANYMORE MORANS!1
 
2013-02-13 01:42:29 PM

deanis: HOW ABOUT CHANGING THE NAME OF THE "BIG TEN". THERE IS NOT FARKING 10 TEAMS ANYMORE MORANS!1


BIG 14 sounds more like it, or maybe the Great Midwestern Conference? Doubt it.
 
2013-02-13 01:42:49 PM

markyp09: Looks like Illinois might not win any games the next few years.


Ha, I came in to say this.

Pre-conference play is all we have! Don't take it from us!
 
2013-02-13 01:44:17 PM

HaywoodJablonski: The timing coincides nicely with the BCS rankings not mattering anymore. What a hero


Actually, the timing coincides nicely with the new playoff format. One-loss B1G teams are going to need to up their SoS to try to place ahead of one-loss SEC teams. Because the SEC is allowed their built-in bye weeks by the pollsters.
 
2013-02-13 01:54:17 PM

Tiberius Gracchus: I was contemplating some headline about "B1G takes steps to ensure Michigan never loses to Appalachian State again."  Curse my slow trigger finger.


Michigan plays them in 2014.

/assuming this announcement doesn't break current contracts
 
2013-02-13 02:03:02 PM
As a collge football fan I think this is a great move, as a Div. 1-AA school alum (FCS) I hate it. Several Div. 1-AA football programs play these games for notoriety and financial reasons ($250k-$750k per game in most cases). This will hurt a lot of athletic programs in the part of the country that rely on those games to support other less profitable athletic programs.
 
2013-02-13 02:03:33 PM
They are making it mandatory by the 2015 season. If teams can get out of it sooner the conference is happy to help them find a replacement game.
 
2013-02-13 02:05:06 PM

Tiberius Gracchus: I was contemplating some headline about "B1G takes steps to ensure Michigan never loses to Appalachian State again."  Curse my slow trigger finger.


My thoughts exactly. Sounds to me like they just don't want to ensure more Big Ten teams don't get humiliated by their FCS peers. The Michigan-App State game is one of the all-time great college football stories, but it's rare for FBS teams to schedule decent FCS teams and, even when they do, the game is almost never competitive. I don't think football fans will be missing much if Nebraska isn't allowed to schedule Idaho State anymore and so on. FBS went 89-6 against FCS in 2011 (most recent year I could find).

Will be interesting to see if other conferences do something similar. Many FCS programs depend on the payday, even if it means getting crushed. FBS teams like to pad their schedules with easy wins, but I think fans are getting really disgruntled with some of the match-ups. I've heard the rumblings around Nebraska - there's really no point in going to the FCS opponent. Nebraska shouldn't charge fans to go to a game against Idaho State if that's the opponent they're going to put on the field.
 
2013-02-13 02:05:33 PM

kdawg7736: deanis: HOW ABOUT CHANGING THE NAME OF THE "BIG TEN". THERE IS NOT FARKING 10 TEAMS ANYMORE MORANS!1

BIG 14 sounds more like it, or maybe the Great Midwestern Conference? Doubt it.


I really wish they would've picked different names for each division too. Legends and Leaders? lame. How about just the Midwest Conference? It's simple and accurate.
 
2013-02-13 02:08:42 PM
that's fine they will still have minnesota, illinois, and indiana in the conference and will add rugters and maryland soon.  lots of automatic wins.
 
2013-02-13 02:09:36 PM

kdawg7736: deanis: HOW ABOUT CHANGING THE NAME OF THE "BIG TEN". THERE IS NOT FARKING 10 TEAMS ANYMORE MORANS!1

BIG 14 sounds more like it, or maybe the Great Midwestern Conference? Doubt it.


Everybody But Notre Dame Conference?
 
2013-02-13 02:10:11 PM

wjmorris3: I'd take this further. Why not have the Big Ten go to a true round-robin?


because they stupidly expanded to infinity-potato teams and now will let the random draw of the schedule determine the championship match up.
 
2013-02-13 02:13:49 PM

TheOther: kdawg7736: deanis: HOW ABOUT CHANGING THE NAME OF THE "BIG TEN". THERE IS NOT FARKING 10 TEAMS ANYMORE MORANS!1

BIG 14 sounds more like it, or maybe the Great Midwestern Conference? Doubt it.

Everybody But Notre Dame Conference?


I'd imagine we're going to 16 sooner rather than later.  Delany of course thinks he is being clever by branding us B1G because that will look like B16.  Meanwhile the alums of 14 schools are looking to kill him over the Rutgers and Maryland thing.

/if the rumors about Johns Hopkins affiliating with the conference for lacrosse are true, he at least gets a quick death
 
2013-02-13 02:17:15 PM

A Fark Handle: wjmorris3: I'd take this further. Why not have the Big Ten go to a true round-robin?

because they stupidly expanded to infinity-potato teams and now will let the random draw of the schedule determine the championship match up.


I mean, think of it this way. Would any Michigan fan complain if they played 12 Big Ten schools every year?
 
2013-02-13 02:22:46 PM

wjmorris3: I mean, think of it this way. Would any Michigan fan complain if they played 12 Big Ten schools every year?


Kinda, it would be 14 games if you play the conference championship and a bowl game.  Plus, unless the other big conferences do it too, you're putting yourself at a disadvantage when it comes to NCG considerations.  PAC-10 fans had a love/hate relationship with their conference schedule for that reason.
 
2013-02-13 02:22:58 PM

ha-ha-guy: TheOther: kdawg7736: deanis: HOW ABOUT CHANGING THE NAME OF THE "BIG TEN". THERE IS NOT FARKING 10 TEAMS ANYMORE MORANS!1

BIG 14 sounds more like it, or maybe the Great Midwestern Conference? Doubt it.

Everybody But Notre Dame Conference?

I'd imagine we're going to 16 sooner rather than later.  Delany of course thinks he is being clever by branding us B1G because that will look like B16.  Meanwhile the alums of 14 schools are looking to kill him over the Rutgers and Maryland thing.


We are?
 
2013-02-13 02:25:57 PM

TigersorHawksorBoth: ha-ha-guy: TheOther: kdawg7736: deanis: HOW ABOUT CHANGING THE NAME OF THE "BIG TEN". THERE IS NOT FARKING 10 TEAMS ANYMORE MORANS!1

BIG 14 sounds more like it, or maybe the Great Midwestern Conference? Doubt it.

Everybody But Notre Dame Conference?

I'd imagine we're going to 16 sooner rather than later.  Delany of course thinks he is being clever by branding us B1G because that will look like B16.  Meanwhile the alums of 14 schools are looking to kill him over the Rutgers and Maryland thing.

We are?


No we arent. Just extra wins. Next up should be Iowa St and Kansas
 
2013-02-13 02:29:38 PM

saber_saw25: Several Div. 1-AA football programs play these games for notoriety and financial reasons ($250k-$750k per game in most cases). This will hurt a lot of athletic programs in the part of the country that rely on those games to support other less profitable athletic programs.


The problem is athletic programs scheduling games for financial reasons in the first place.  This is too much like a business, and it's definitely got the stink of it.  If you need to schedule boring exhibition games to stay solvent, either the system is badly flawed or your AD really sucks -- if not both.
 
2013-02-13 02:31:25 PM

ha-ha-guy: TheOther: kdawg7736: deanis: HOW ABOUT CHANGING THE NAME OF THE "BIG TEN". THERE IS NOT FARKING 10 TEAMS ANYMORE MORANS!1

BIG 14 sounds more like it, or maybe the Great Midwestern Conference? Doubt it.

Everybody But Notre Dame Conference?

I'd imagine we're going to 16 sooner rather than later.  Delany of course thinks he is being clever by branding us B1G because that will look like B16.  Meanwhile the alums of 14 schools are looking to kill him over the Rutgers and Maryland thing.

/if the rumors about Johns Hopkins affiliating with the conference for lacrosse are true, he at least gets a quick death


I think he just wants to make Bo Pelini's head explode, scanners style, by denying him his South Dakota State cupcakes.
 
2013-02-13 02:35:37 PM

Champion of the Sun: wjmorris3: I mean, think of it this way. Would any Michigan fan complain if they played 12 Big Ten schools every year?

Kinda, it would be 14 games if you play the conference championship and a bowl game.  Plus, unless the other big conferences do it too, you're putting yourself at a disadvantage when it comes to NCG considerations.  PAC-10 fans had a love/hate relationship with their conference schedule for that reason.


the pac-10 round robin was a beautiful thing.  add to the round robinness there was the 5 pods (wa, or, nor cali, so cal, az) for all of the other travel scheduling.  i have no idea (ok, i do.  tv money) why anyone would think changing that was a good idea.  granted 9 conference games isn't 12.
 
2013-02-13 02:38:55 PM

Champion of the Sun: wjmorris3: I mean, think of it this way. Would any Michigan fan complain if they played 12 Big Ten schools every year?

Kinda, it would be 14 games if you play the conference championship and a bowl game.  Plus, unless the other big conferences do it too, you're putting yourself at a disadvantage when it comes to NCG considerations.  PAC-10 fans had a love/hate relationship with their conference schedule for that reason.


Carr said Michigan would be willing to play all ten other teams yearly back in the Big 10 = 11 teams time.
 
2013-02-13 02:40:46 PM

deanis: kdawg7736: deanis: HOW ABOUT CHANGING THE NAME OF THE "BIG TEN". THERE IS NOT FARKING 10 TEAMS ANYMORE MORANS!1

BIG 14 sounds more like it, or maybe the Great Midwestern Conference? Doubt it.

I really wish they would've picked different names for each division too. Legends and Leaders? lame. How about just the Midwest Conference? It's simple and accurate.


Rutgers, Penn State and Maryland are considered Midwest?
 
2013-02-13 02:43:02 PM

eagles95: TigersorHawksorBoth: ha-ha-guy: TheOther: kdawg7736: deanis: HOW ABOUT CHANGING THE NAME OF THE "BIG TEN". THERE IS NOT FARKING 10 TEAMS ANYMORE MORANS!1

BIG 14 sounds more like it, or maybe the Great Midwestern Conference? Doubt it.

Everybody But Notre Dame Conference?

I'd imagine we're going to 16 sooner rather than later.  Delany of course thinks he is being clever by branding us B1G because that will look like B16.  Meanwhile the alums of 14 schools are looking to kill him over the Rutgers and Maryland thing.

We are?

No we arent. Just extra wins. Next up should be Iowa St and Kansas


Oh please not Iowa State, we lose to them.
 
2013-02-13 02:44:20 PM

p the boiler: deanis: kdawg7736: deanis: HOW ABOUT CHANGING THE NAME OF THE "BIG TEN". THERE IS NOT FARKING 10 TEAMS ANYMORE MORANS!1

BIG 14 sounds more like it, or maybe the Great Midwestern Conference? Doubt it.

I really wish they would've picked different names for each division too. Legends and Leaders? lame. How about just the Midwest Conference? It's simple and accurate.

Rutgers, Penn State and Maryland are considered Midwest?


how about; money grabbing whores who pretend they care about tradition conference?  not simple, but accurate.
 
2013-02-13 02:44:45 PM

JohnAnnArbor: Champion of the Sun: wjmorris3: I mean, think of it this way. Would any Michigan fan complain if they played 12 Big Ten schools every year?

Kinda, it would be 14 games if you play the conference championship and a bowl game.  Plus, unless the other big conferences do it too, you're putting yourself at a disadvantage when it comes to NCG considerations.  PAC-10 fans had a love/hate relationship with their conference schedule for that reason.

Carr said Michigan would be willing to play all ten other teams yearly back in the Big 10 = 11 teams time.


Dave Brandon (Michigan's AD) was saying that he's going to push for all B1G schools to play 9 league games rather than the current 8, once the expansion to 14 happens.  It's a win-win for the good teams in the conference---they get to say they're playing 9 conference games, but that 9th game is going to be some pushover like Maryland, so it's not too different from scheduling a MAC patsy.
 
2013-02-13 02:46:17 PM

A Fark Handle: Champion of the Sun: wjmorris3: I mean, think of it this way. Would any Michigan fan complain if they played 12 Big Ten schools every year?

Kinda, it would be 14 games if you play the conference championship and a bowl game.  Plus, unless the other big conferences do it too, you're putting yourself at a disadvantage when it comes to NCG considerations.  PAC-10 fans had a love/hate relationship with their conference schedule for that reason.

the pac-10 round robin was a beautiful thing.  add to the round robinness there was the 5 pods (wa, or, nor cali, so cal, az) for all of the other travel scheduling.  i have no idea (ok, i do.  tv money) why anyone would think changing that was a good idea.  granted 9 conference games isn't 12.


There was also more parity in the Pac-10.  More parity?  There's probably a correct way to say that.  There's a big gap between the good and bad big ten programs.  Forcing you to play Illinois and Indiana year in year out isn't proving anything.  Which is a problem with the current inter division 'rivalry' games.  Michigan and OSU have to beat up on each other every year, and MSU gets Indiana.  MSU isn't top of the heap like Michigan and OSU, but an easier rivalry game levels the playing field too much.  Weakens the division when luck of the draw might let MSU skip OSU, PSU, and Wisconsin one year while beating up Indiana.

Also leads to stuff like a 4-4 Wisconsin team playing in the conference championship.  It's probably stupid to make a conference so large that you're not playing 4-5 teams in it every year.
 
2013-02-13 02:49:20 PM

Champion of the Sun: It's

probably unbelievable farking stupid to make a conference so large that you're not playing 4-5 teams in it every year.

ftfy
 
2013-02-13 02:50:43 PM

JohnAnnArbor: Carr said Michigan would be willing to play all ten other teams yearly back in the Big 10 = 11 teams time.


Doesn't mean it's a great idea unless we can convince the SEC to kick a few schools out and play a similar schedule.  Assuming that we are shooting for a Big Ten team to get into the NCG as opposed to making the Rose Bowl the primary goal.  But rooting for a conference is what cousin humpers do.

Kinda sucks either way.  Either need to see crappy games against weak opponents or crappy games because everyone is beaten up from playing a big ten team every week.
 
2013-02-13 02:57:49 PM

dragonchild: saber_saw25: Several Div. 1-AA football programs play these games for notoriety and financial reasons ($250k-$750k per game in most cases). This will hurt a lot of athletic programs in the part of the country that rely on those games to support other less profitable athletic programs.

The problem is athletic programs scheduling games for financial reasons in the first place.  This is too much like a business, and it's definitely got the stink of it.  If you need to schedule boring exhibition games to stay solvent, either the system is badly flawed or your AD really sucks -- if not both.


I agree, but baseball, softball, and volleyball aren't historically profitable for any unviersity.
 
2013-02-13 03:07:51 PM

saber_saw25: As a collge football fan I think this is a great move, as a Div. 1-AA school alum (FCS) I hate it. Several Div. 1-AA football programs play these games for notoriety and financial reasons ($250k-$750k per game in most cases). This will hurt a lot of athletic programs in the part of the country that rely on those games to support other less profitable athletic programs.


And I think you're starting to understand  why B1G and other conferences are going to sign up for this idea. Less exposure for smaller schools means a higher likelihood of the big time recruits refusing to consider the small universities. The small universities take a financial hit by not playing the big boys, which could ultimately mean they can't keep financing expensive sports like football. The money that has been spread about a bit is left in a more concentrated pool, meaning schools like Maryland and Tennessee have less financial troubles, and the FBS teams all prosper.

Then you add in the better competition and other arguments mentioned above, and it becomes very clear for the ADs which way they need to go.
 
2013-02-13 03:13:18 PM

Champion of the Sun: Also leads to stuff like a 4-4 Wisconsin team playing in the conference championship. It's probably stupid to make a conference so large that you're not playing 4-5 teams in it every year.


No, lying to the NCAA and letting kids get raped repeatedly in your facilities' showers leads to 4-4 teams in the conference championship.

//Wisconsin was awful this year
///Went to school there.
 
2013-02-13 03:17:37 PM

mjbok: Champion of the Sun: Also leads to stuff like a 4-4 Wisconsin team playing in the conference championship. It's probably stupid to make a conference so large that you're not playing 4-5 teams in it every year.

No, lying to the NCAA and letting kids get raped repeatedly in your facilities' showers leads to 4-4 teams in the conference championship.

//Wisconsin was awful this year
///Went to school there.


If they hadn't come up with tortured divisions based on no logic whatsoever, the two highest ranked eligible teams would've played.
 
2013-02-13 03:24:10 PM

Champion of the Sun: If they hadn't come up with tortured divisions based on no logic whatsoever, the two highest ranked eligible teams would've played.


That I agree with, but it raises other problems.  Go back a few seasons and you had three 10-1 teams.  Then you go to head to head, right?  Problem is Wisconsin beat Ohio State who beat Michigan State who beat Wisconsin.  Who goes then?  Based on ranking?  That's not really fair because whomever lost last generally is ranked lowest.  A team can lose a game in the first couple weeks of the season and still end up ranked #1 in the country, but they can't lose a game in the last couple.  Plus you have name bias when it comes to rankings, so there is no system that is going to work all of the time.
 
2013-02-13 03:26:09 PM

mjbok: Champion of the Sun: If they hadn't come up with tortured divisions based on no logic whatsoever, the two highest ranked eligible teams would've played.

That I agree with, but it raises other problems.  Go back a few seasons and you had three 10-1 teams.  Then you go to head to head, right?  Problem is Wisconsin beat Ohio State who beat Michigan State who beat Wisconsin.  Who goes then?  Based on ranking?  That's not really fair because whomever lost last generally is ranked lowest.  A team can lose a game in the first couple weeks of the season and still end up ranked #1 in the country, but they can't lose a game in the last couple.  Plus you have name bias when it comes to rankings, so there is no system that is going to work all of the time.


Just have the athletic directors vote on it, that's never been a problem before.

Tie breakers suck, but still better than Wisconsin making the Rose Bowl this year.
 
2013-02-13 03:28:34 PM

Champion of the Sun: Tie breakers suck, but still better than Wisconsin making the Rose Bowl this year.


To be fair they kicked the ever living shiat out of their opponent in the championship game.

//Shouldn't have been there.
 
2013-02-13 03:30:59 PM
Tennessee Tech

Clever.
 
2013-02-13 03:31:23 PM

mjbok: Champion of the Sun: Tie breakers suck, but still better than Wisconsin making the Rose Bowl this year.

To be fair they kicked the ever living shiat out of their opponent in the championship game.

//Shouldn't have been there.


Yeah, the Big Ten really shiat the bed this year.  Hurts future TV revenue and recruiting.  But those billions of Rutgers fans will cancel that out for sure.
 
2013-02-13 03:38:44 PM

Champion of the Sun: Yeah, the Big Ten really shiat the bed this year. Hurts future TV revenue and recruiting. But those billions of Rutgers fans will cancel that out for sure.


I know.  It's not like the conference was watered down enough already, right?
 
2013-02-13 03:59:51 PM
Did they hire a freaking coach yet?
 
Displayed 50 of 84 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report