Big 12 considering adding ACC teams..to 16

[ISUAgronomist]

Like others, I would love to see Clemson and FSU join the B12. If one ACC team leaves the ACC, it could spark other teams leaving the ACC. In that case, all of the SEC, B1G, and B12 could swiftly carve up the ACC in literally a matter of days. Even after the SEC and B1G finished feeding at the ACC trough, there would very probably be Clemson and FSU to the B12 at the very least. Possibly Miami, GT, Maryland, Pitt or BC could be available to the B12. Therefore, I think the B12 ought to be ready to go beyond 12, if, say, Clemson and/or FSU elected to join the B12.

If the B12 moves to a 16-team conference, I do not think 16 teams necessarily must create a lack of league familiarity and lack of cohesion. In fact, I argue that moving to 16 is actually more beneficial for a conference than 12 teams (8 conference games), and certainly better than 14 teams (unbalanced 9 conference games; or, worse yet, 10 conference games).

As many have suggested in the past with respect to a 16-team conference, what you do is break the 16 teams into 4 pods of 4 teams each. Here’s the trick: You do not play the same pod two years in a row (for a home-and-home). Instead, each pod cycles through one of the other 3 pods each year. That is, a different pod each year. That way every team in the league plays every other team in the league every three years. When the cycle begins again, then switch the home-and-home.

It would work like this: ISU, for example, might be in "Pod 1" with Kansas, Kansas State, and Louisville. Those teams would play one another every single year. The pod structure creates, sustains, and emphasizes the closest and most intense league rivalries.

Then "Pod 1" might play "Pod 2" consisting of, say, Clemson (@ Ames), WVU (@ Morgantown), Georgia Tech (@ Ames), and FSU (@ Tallahassee). Three years later ISU would play "Pod 2" again, only this time switch the venues. In between, obviously, "Pod 1" plays "Pod 3" and "Pod 4".

While every school would cycle through the entire league every 3 years, which I think would create excellent league cohesion, an important resulting benefit is that your conference schedule is minimal -- 7 conference games. Add in a "primary" protected rival with a school outside of your pod (and a "secondary" protected rival outside the pod of your "primary" protected rival), and each school still plays only 8 conference games, which is the same number as the less projective 12-team league, and more OOC games than in a 10-team league. No need to cancel Iowa at all.

Continuing with ISU as the example, let's say ISU's “primary” protected rival was Texas Tech "Pod 3"), and its "secondary" protected rival was TCU ("Pod 4"). ISU would play Kansas, Kansas State, Louisville, and Texas Tech every year, ISU would play TCU twice every 3 years, and ISU would play the entire rest of the league once every 3 years. Yet ISU would only have an 8-game conference schedule each year, leaving room for 4 OOC games. Here's the schematic:

Year 1: ISU (“Pod 1”) plays “Pod 2” (E.g.: ISU @ Clemson) (Texas Tech & no TCU)
Year 2: ISU plays “Pod 3” (@ Texas Tech & TCU)
Year 3: ISU plays “Pod 4” (Texas Tech & @ TCU)
Year 4: Cycle repeats (except home-and-home switches)

To repeat: With the protected rival arrangement, you simultaneously create a fourth annual rivalry with a team from a different pod, a fifth rivalry that you play two out of three years with a team from yet another pod, and you are left with the ability to schedule 4 OOC games. Four OOC games is ideal, you're a member of this powerful 16-team conference, and you have 5 significant conference rivalries.

Note also that in a 12-team league, you only get 5 annual rivals. Therefore, the 16-team pod conference has all the benefits of the 12-team league, yet the 16-team league gives you a much larger footprint that will translate into a much bigger TV contract. What’s not to like?

The main point here is that a 16-team conference does not necessarily have to result in an unwieldy conglomeration, cycling through other conference members every 6 years, or longer, resulting in unfamiliarity, especially for the college students. By playing a different pod each year, a college freshman enters school and before he graduates his school has played every team in the conference at least once, yet he enjoys three annual football rivalries with three of his neighboring colleges, a fourth annual rivalry with another conference member, a fifth semi-rivalry two out of three years with yet another conference school, all of which is a fun part of the college experience.

Essentially what you wind up with in a 16-team conference is 5 “anchor” conference teams that you get to love … and hate. You also get all the other teams in the conference with sufficient regularity – every 3 years – that familiarity is not destroyed. Plus you get the “spice of life”: 4 OOC games with teams you bring in just for fun.

Finally, the way the playoff could is work is the two pods that play against each other any particular year would form a "division." The team that wins that division plays in the championship game. The fun part of this structure is that the divisions would change every year, giving some of the consistently less powerful teams a better shot at the conference championship when they do field a great team. Essentially what you wind up with in a 16-team conference is 5 “anchor” conference schools that you get to love … and hate.

To me, at least, a 16 team conference, correctly set up, is superior to a 12-team conference, requiring 8 conference games, but with no protected rivalry game, and far superior to a 14-team conference, requiring an unbalanced 9 or 10 conference games (also with no protected rivalry). At any rate, the above is what I hope is considered if the Big 12 goes to 16 teams, which I hope happens.

TL;DR

 

[cyhiphopp]

TL;DR

 

[digZ]

MEEEEEEERGGEE ITTTTTTTTTTT








MERRRGGGEEE IT INTO THE MONSTERRRRRRR

 

[XOVERX]

It is a long post. Sorry. I could have shortened it up, but WTF.

As for royhobbs09 questions:

#1 -- how do you decide who plays in the conference championship game?

"... the way the playoff could is work is the two pods that play against each other any particular year would form a "division" The team that wins that division plays in the championship game. The fun part of this structure is that the divisions would change every year, giving some of the consistently less powerful teams a better shot at the conference championship when they do field a great team."

#2 -- if our protected rivalry outside the pod is not located in Texas or Florida, then we could go an entire year without a game in either of those states, which would be bad for recruiting.

If ISU really wanted to have a protected rivalry (remember you get two protected rivals) from a school (or schools) in the State of Texas or Florida, there's 4 Texas teams out there. If the league went to 16, I bet there would be at least 1 FL team, maybe 2 (but doubtful 2). ISU is a charter member of the league -- you guys really do have stroke. I bet ISU would get a protected rivalry with at least one Texas or FL team if you wanted one, and maybe even two. TCU, for example? Tech? Baylor? Probably not Texas, no.

#3 -- I could see the Oklahoma/Kansas schools fitting in one pod and the Texas schools sitting in another pod with us in a pod with WV and 3 other Northern schools we have little history with (KU or KSU would likely be our protected rivalry). Georgraphically, this would make a lot of sense, but it would not make any ISU fans happy. It would be my great preference to split by divisions on an East and West basis (with 2 Texas teams going East) in any expansion scenario.

My guess -- and it is only a guess -- is that one pod would consist of Texas, OU, OSU, and somebody else (my choice would be TCU). Neither Texas nor Oklahoma want to meet in the C-game, yet we both want to keep the RRR. This arrangement actually works out great for ISU and every other school in the league because you might not have to beat both Texas and OU to win the conference. In fact, you might not have to beat either one to win the conference, given the way the divisions would change every year. I do not believe Texas wants any part of a pod with all 3 of the other Texas schools, due to our need to recruit OOS. For example, if, say, FSU joined, I feel quite certain Texas and OU would want have some kind of rivalry status with FSU. Therefore, the protected rivalries of the other Texas schools would get spread out among the other league members, precisely so other schools could recruit Texas. There really is enough Texas players to go around. BTW, did you notice NU only was able to recruit 1 Texas player this year?

 

[alarson]

it deserves its own thread..that mega thread stuff is nutty

Going to 16 is nutty.

Feed the megathread.

 

[aauummm]

It is a long post. Sorry. I could have shortened it up, but WTF.

As for royhobbs09 questions:

#1 -- how do you decide who plays in the conference championship game?

"... the way the playoff could is work is the two pods that play against each other any particular year would form a "division" The team that wins that division plays in the championship game. The fun part of this structure is that the divisions would change every year, giving some of the consistently less powerful teams a better shot at the conference championship when they do field a great team."

#2 -- if our protected rivalry outside the pod is not located in Texas or Florida, then we could go an entire year without a game in either of those states, which would be bad for recruiting.

If ISU really wanted to have a protected rivalry (remember you get two protected rivals) from a school (or schools) in the State of Texas or Florida, there's 4 Texas teams out there. If the league went to 16, I bet there would be at least 1 FL team, maybe 2 (but doubtful 2). ISU is a charter member of the league -- you guys really do have stroke. I bet ISU would get a protected rivalry with at least one Texas or FL team if you wanted one, and maybe even two. TCU, for example? Tech? Baylor? Probably not Texas, no.

#3 -- I could see the Oklahoma/Kansas schools fitting in one pod and the Texas schools sitting in another pod with us in a pod with WV and 3 other Northern schools we have little history with (KU or KSU would likely be our protected rivalry). Georgraphically, this would make a lot of sense, but it would not make any ISU fans happy. It would be my great preference to split by divisions on an East and West basis (with 2 Texas teams going East) in any expansion scenario.

My guess -- and it is only a guess -- is that one pod would consist of Texas, OU, OSU, and somebody else (my choice would be TCU). Neither Texas nor Oklahoma want to meet in the C-game, yet we both want to keep the RRR. This arrangement actually works out great for ISU and every other school in the league because you might not have to beat both Texas and OU to win the conference. In fact, you might not have to beat either one to win the conference, given the way the divisions would change every year. I do not believe Texas wants any part of a pod with all 3 of the other Texas schools, due to our need to recruit OOS. For example, if, say, FSU joined, I feel quite certain Texas and OU would want have some kind of rivalry status with FSU. Therefore, the protected rivalries of the other Texas schools would get spread out among the other league members, precisely so other schools could recruit Texas. There really is enough Texas players to go around. BTW, did you notice NU only was able to recruit 1 Texas player this year?

This stuff spins my head. I think I'll just wait and see what happens and not try to figure out all of the possible combinations!:spinny:

 

[royhobbs09]

It is a long post. Sorry. I could have shortened it up, but WTF.

As for royhobbs09 questions:

#1 -- how do you decide who plays in the conference championship game?

"... the way the playoff could is work is the two pods that play against each other any particular year would form a "division" The team that wins that division plays in the championship game. The fun part of this structure is that the divisions would change every year, giving some of the consistently less powerful teams a better shot at the conference championship when they do field a great team."

#2 -- if our protected rivalry outside the pod is not located in Texas or Florida, then we could go an entire year without a game in either of those states, which would be bad for recruiting.

If ISU really wanted to have a protected rivalry (remember you get two protected rivals) from a school (or schools) in the State of Texas or Florida, there's 4 Texas teams out there. If the league went to 16, I bet there would be at least 1 FL team, maybe 2 (but doubtful 2). ISU is a charter member of the league -- you guys really do have stroke. I bet ISU would get a protected rivalry with at least one Texas or FL team if you wanted one, and maybe even two. TCU, for example? Tech? Baylor? Probably not Texas, no.

#3 -- I could see the Oklahoma/Kansas schools fitting in one pod and the Texas schools sitting in another pod with us in a pod with WV and 3 other Northern schools we have little history with (KU or KSU would likely be our protected rivalry). Georgraphically, this would make a lot of sense, but it would not make any ISU fans happy. It would be my great preference to split by divisions on an East and West basis (with 2 Texas teams going East) in any expansion scenario.

My guess -- and it is only a guess -- is that one pod would consist of Texas, OU, OSU, and somebody else (my choice would be TCU). Neither Texas nor Oklahoma want to meet in the C-game, yet we both want to keep the RRR. This arrangement actually works out great for ISU and every other school in the league because you might not have to beat both Texas and OU to win the conference. In fact, you might not have to beat either one to win the conference, given the way the divisions would change every year. I do not believe Texas wants any part of a pod with all 3 of the other Texas schools, due to our need to recruit OOS. For example, if, say, FSU joined, I feel quite certain Texas and OU would want have some kind of rivalry status with FSU. Therefore, the protected rivalries of the other Texas schools would get spread out among the other league members, precisely so other schools could recruit Texas. There really is enough Texas players to go around. BTW, did you notice NU only was able to recruit 1 Texas player this year?

I like the rotating idea for conference championships. I would be ok with 16 and the pod system if ISU is guaranteed to be in the same pod as KU and KSU AND is guaranteed to play a game in either Texas or Florida in conference every year (so has 2 protected rivalries from those states -- doesn't matter which teams). I just don't think that is likely.