IlliniMike_Aurora
Straight outta Champaign
you are not wrong.... the tiebreakers will be. 1. OSU 2. USC 3. see 1 or 2
Conference Realignment
- Status
ChiefGritty
- Chicago, IL
But all three will easily make the playoff so no one cares.
People aren't registering how radically different everything is going to be next year.
Kramerica Industries
- Greenville, SC
Joel Goodson
- ties will be resolved
I don't think we'll see divisions soon. The powers that be want teams to play each other sooner rather than later (faster cycle).
Mr. Tibbs
- southeast DuPage
agree 100%
I could see them adopt NFL type scheduling where they work in flexibility of part of schedule so good teams have a schedule weighted vs other good teams
guarantees them marquee matchups
Last edited:
At this point I only have two priorities for Illinois football as we continue to gaze ever deeper into the abyss.
(1) A “regular season” schedule where somehow or other the majority of our games (at least six, even better 7-8 per year) are with traditional midwestern B1G opponents. Iowa, Minnesota, Purdue, Michigan, Wisconsin, etc.
(2) A continuation of lesser bowl games, or some kind of postseason alternative for teams that don’t qualify for the CFB playoffs, so that the season doesn’t just abruptly end in November if the team is in that 6-8 win range, which we’re probably always going to be (at best), let’s face it.
If those two aspects were preserved, I’ll be much more able to deal with all the other crazy machinations that are transforming the institution of CFB right now.
(1) A “regular season” schedule where somehow or other the majority of our games (at least six, even better 7-8 per year) are with traditional midwestern B1G opponents. Iowa, Minnesota, Purdue, Michigan, Wisconsin, etc.
(2) A continuation of lesser bowl games, or some kind of postseason alternative for teams that don’t qualify for the CFB playoffs, so that the season doesn’t just abruptly end in November if the team is in that 6-8 win range, which we’re probably always going to be (at best), let’s face it.
If those two aspects were preserved, I’ll be much more able to deal with all the other crazy machinations that are transforming the institution of CFB right now.
Why would that be brave? Most of the rest of the country would say they were too scared to play ND or the SEC.
Three less chances to get easy wins against mid-majors. Three more chances to see CFP dreams implode.
ChiefGritty
- Chicago, IL
The normalization of strength of the teams you've beaten mattering more than your superficial record (like has happened in college basketball), also something people haven't wrapped their heads around yet.
Because nothing has really changed yet people assume we're at like a 2/10 down the path to NFL-ization when we're actually at like a 6
Joel Goodson
- ties will be resolved
when the P2 breakaway (from the NCAA) occurs, there is a less than zero percent chance the BIG will accept the SEC schools to continue their cupcake-laden scheduling.
Fighter of the Nightman
- Chicago, IL
I find it kind of interesting to talk to people of different ages and hear their takes on "the conferences." For example, I was born in (very late) 1991, and the first REAL season I remember is 2002. So, I grew up with Penn State being in the Big Ten as "natural" and I never knew of the SWC or the Big Eight in pre-Big XII days.
Therefore, my bias toward a "perfect" conference alignment was in the mid-2000s. However, even then I am sure you had older fans talking about how unnatural it was for "Texas to be in the Big Eight (Twelve)" or something like that. I wonder if there are any older fans who would say that SOME of the realignment was for the best and that we have just gone too far versus just disliking each change more and more progressively.
Therefore, my bias toward a "perfect" conference alignment was in the mid-2000s. However, even then I am sure you had older fans talking about how unnatural it was for "Texas to be in the Big Eight (Twelve)" or something like that. I wonder if there are any older fans who would say that SOME of the realignment was for the best and that we have just gone too far versus just disliking each change more and more progressively.
I'm really out of it. Kinda figured there were tougher games on their schedules. Didn't realize how bad it's become.
I am almost always the "change is bad" person.
That said, I was OK with PSU joining the Big 10. I thought it added prestige to the conference and raised the bar as far as quality teams in the conference. While in the Nittany Mountains, Penn State just "felt" like a Big 10 school.
I was surprised to have Nebraska join. But they are a heritage school, more prestige and the plains states and the midwest are simpatico.
Raised my eyebrows when Rutgers and Maryland joined. I still don't view them as Big 10. Understood the reasons why (TV) but I'm not the biggest fan.
The Pac-12 schools joining the Big 10 are just ridiculous. That and the ATLANTIC Coast conference adding schools in states that touch the Pacific Ocean and Gulf of Mexico are stupid.
We have gone way too far.
Mr. Tibbs
- southeast DuPage
SEC schools all have 4 non cons
one may be a good game (ie Ole Miss playing at Tulane tomorrow)
but three are basically for sure cupcakes against one FCS school and 2 bottom of the barrel G5 schools
Fighter of the Nightman
- Chicago, IL
Definitely agree on the last part, even if I am still happy we wound up in the "haves" conferences, so to speak. My favorite setup is still just before the ACC raided the Big East and after the Big East "elevated" some Conference USA teams. It still had some odd components compared to the "traditional" conferences, but it's what I came to regard as the baseline, and at the time it actually seemed like it could stick together. Circa the 2007 season when we were Rose Bowl-bound (in order of standings that year to take you back!)...
ACC
Atlantic: #10 Boston College, #21 Clemson, Wake Forest, Florida State, Maryland, NC State
Coastal: #9 Virginia Tech, Virginia, Georgia Tech, North Carolina, Miami (FL), Duke
Big East
#6 West Virginia, UConn, #17 Cincinnati, South Florida, Rutgers, Louisville, Pitt, Syracuse
Big Ten
#5 Ohio State, #18 Michigan, #20 Illinois, #24 Wisconsin, Penn State, Iowa, Purdue, Indiana, Michigan State, Northwestern, Minnesota
Big XII
Northern: #4 Missouri, #7 Kansas, Colorado, Kansas State, Nebraska, Iowa State
Southern: #8 Oklahoma, #10 Texas, #22 Texas Tech, Oklahoma State, Texas A&M, Baylor
Pac-10
#3 USC, #16 Arizona State, #25 Oregon State, #23 Oregon, UCLA, Arizona, Cal, Washington State, Stanford, Washington
Non-BCS teams who finished the season ranked included #14 BYU (now Big XII-bound) and #19 Hawaii.
SEC
East: #12 Tennessee, #2 Georgia, #13 Florida, South Carolina, Kentucky, Vanderbilt
West: #1 LSU, #15 Auburn, Arkansas, Mississippi State, Alabama
, Ole MissBorn early 80's here. I had always viewed the best conferences as all the one's that all of the school's had the name of the state in them. Then each conference had like 1 team that didn't belong that was grandfathered in long ago like NW, Duke, Vandy, Baylor or Stanford for some unknown reason. So to me, the first time it was really odd was when the ACC started adding schools like BC, Pitt, Syracuse, and Louisville because I didn't view them as top tier state schools but as city schools. Now it's odd to me that Houston and Cincy get the bump up to a "P5" conference, because my view is when did KS St, Iowa St, and OK St. get to determine who was considered a "power" school.
To me, putting the city schools like Houston, Memphis, Louisville, Pitt, Syracuse, Toledo, Cincinnati, Miami, Tulsa, BC and maybe a few others would make a pretty cool conference instead of having them splintered apart.
Fighter of the Nightman
- Chicago, IL
^ I agree on everything you said except maybe Syracuse ... even though they are literally named for a city, I feel like they "function" as the state school of New York (or at least upstate New York). The other ones indeed seem to have way more of an identity tied up in their major metro area.
Fighter of the Nightman
- Chicago, IL
I don't know anything about the legality here, but MAN do I feel awful for those fan bases.
Free article:
www.espn.com
OSU, Wazzu filing seeks control of Pac-12's future
Oregon State and Washington State have filed a legal complaint against the Pac-12 and commissioner George Kliavkoff, with the heart of the dispute being the distribution of the conference's remaining assets.
so, why play a conference championship game? in fact, the 3rd team would have an advantage not playing that game .
Whitman County Judge Grants WSU and OSU Restraining Order Against Pac-12
WASHINGTON - Whitman County Superior Court Judge Gary Libey has ruled in favor of Washington State University and Oregon State University in preventing the Pac-12 conference from holding a full
Whitman County Judge Grants WSU and OSU Restraining Order Against Pac-12
WASHINGTON - Whitman County Superior Court Judge Gary Libey has ruled in favor of Washington State University and Oregon State University in preventing the Pac-12 conference from holding a fullwww.bigcountrynewsconnection.com
You’ll never guess where George Kliavkoff was during Oregon State-Washington State Pac-12 legal hearing
Washington State and Oregon State want control of #Pac12 assets. George Kliavkoff was in an unexpected place. The judge shared the information.
www.yahoo.com
I didn’t know what those two universities were wanting. But it turns out one of the issues is the leaving schools want to use PAC 12 funds to pay for their transition to their new conference. The board of directors are probably spilt between schools so the remains 2 schools basically have no say. What I heard is the MWC and remaining 2 PAC 12 schools could merge but retain the Pac 12 name.
Mr. Tibbs
- southeast DuPage
EVERY UNIVERSITY is wanting because they have all been spending money like drunken sailorsYou’ll never guess where George Kliavkoff was during Oregon State-Washington State Pac-12 legal hearing
Washington State and Oregon State want control of #Pac12 assets. George Kliavkoff was in an unexpected place. The judge shared the information.
I didn’t know what those two universities were wanting. But it turns out one of the issues is the leaving schools want to use PAC 12 funds to pay for their transition to their new conference. The board of directors are probably spilt between schools so the remains 2 schools basically have no say. What I heard is the MWC and remaining 2 PAC 12 schools could merge but retain the Pac 12 name.
- Status