Is there room for rivalry in a super-conference?

#26
#26
Rivalries will always mean something in college football. I think they will be one of the only constants in college football going forward. We’ve already added two of the biggest rivalries OU/TX and TX/TX A&M. Not to mention OU/MIZZOU. I think that’s worth something.
 
#27
#27
If I'm the ACC, and have this media contract that extends through 2035, then I ask Cinci, Memphis, and WVa to join the 14 (15 w/ ND) member conference. Those locations chip away at both B1G and SEC broadcasting markets. The programs have good (given recent history) not great football and basketball programs. If inclined I might ask UConn to join too to help establish some Big East type rivalries and help in the North East market a little more. I might even consider a UCF, but why really since Miami and FSU are very solid...

If the B1G is wanting to play ball, then maybe they can pilfer Kansas for B-ball purposes. Maybe ask OSU Cowboys along for continuity purposes. But, the B1G is kind of limited in its membership options it seems. Not sure a MAC or even DII like North Dakota St makes much sense. Doubt Iowa St is an option, but I could be wrong there.

Then, if I'm the PAC 12 I consider TX Tech, Boise State, BYU, and Baylor...and maybe Iowa St, TCU and/ or K-State. If the B1G doesn't act quickly enough, then the PAC may get all the BIG 12 left overs including OSU and Kansas. This scenario might be the strongest move, as it would severely limit the B1G's ability to expand into a Super Conference.

By limiting the B1G's expansion you reduce it to a conference, not a Super Conference and you block its long-term media revenue viability. The B1G is the second highest grossing athletic conference. It would also give the PAC 12 the largest geographic swath and almost 1/3 of the total US population. That's serious revenue earning potential when it comes to media contracts.
 
#28
#28
I think annual rivalries might not be as prominent but I think if the pods are put in place and some of the 9 game scheduling people have mentioned happens it’ll create MORE rivalries. The only thing is you won’t play some traditional rivals annually but you play every one at least once every other year. I think that’ll create even more anticipated matchups and hostility with other teams within the conference. I am willing to give up playing Florida or UGA every year to play every SEC team in a two year span. That feels more like a conference. There is no reason we should go 12 years without going to SEC west schools outside of Bama
 
#29
#29
ArmchairQB said:
Self-explanatory question. As conferences get bigger and bigger, is it even worth it to try to hang onto the notion of rivals when it comes to scheduling? At some point you pass the point of no return, right? Where there are just too many teams and so you know that a particular year's recruiting class will play, say, A&M once, but it'll be at home and they're never going to go to College Station before they graduate or go pro or whatnot. Do you still lock in traditional rivalries in scheduling, knowing that it makes it that much more difficult to do home and away with everyone else?

In a traditional sense, for me, you do it, you keep the rivalries you've been playing for a century... but maybe that's not the conference we're building. The SEC wants to be a power and revenue generating machine, and kids make money to play now... if this is going to be a semi-pro league, then maybe it's time to just go ahead and be a semi-pro league and do rotations the same way the NFL does.

Do you make divisions based on geography? Put traditional rivals in the same division regardless of geography? Do you say some players will never play at this or that stadium and that's fine? How do you slice this pie?
Click to expand...
Sure
 
#30
#30
I used to be a solid supporter of the 3rd Saturday in October thing, no longer though. Put Bama on the schedule about like we would any other SEC team. We're trying to figure out how to beat Kentucky at Neyland again and pretending we have a rivalry with Bama is silly, they now schedule us for their homecoming.
 
#31
#31
Not only is there room but I say let's cast Mizzou back like an undersized bass and add Oklahoma State, Clemson, Florida State, Georgia Tech, and Louisville. This way every major in-state rivalry in the southeast/southwest would be under the SEC umbrella.

Alabama
Auburn

Florida
Florida State

Georgia
Georgia Tech

Kentucky
Louisville

Mississippi
Mississippi State

Oklahoma
Oklahoma State

Clemson
South Carolina

Tennessee
Vanderbilt

Texas
Texas A&M

The only teams that would be without a crosstown Rival would be LSU and Arkansas and I don't see us adding Tulane, LA Tech, or Araknsas State to the SEC.
 
Last edited:
#32
#32
A conference can be as big as it wants, as long as they can come down to the right amount of schools at the end of the year. That gets more complicated the larger the conference. You can do this by keeping a certain amount of "pods" that contain a certain amount of teams. Keeping rivalries is a simple matter of keeping them in different "pods" that play each other. That's why I continue to say that schools like Oklahoma and Texas will be in different pods, or (edit) let's call them "leagues". Why would you kill rivalries? It's a huge draw. It's what you WANT.
 
Last edited:
#33
#33
IluvdoubleD's said:
A conference can be as big as it wants, as long as they can come down to the right amount of schools at the end of the year. That gets more complicated the larger the conference. You can do this by keeping a certain amount of "pods" that contain a certain amount of teams. Keeping rivalries is a simple matter of keeping them in different "pods" that play each other. That's why I continue to say that schools like Oklahoma and Texas will be in different pods, or (edit) let's call them "leagues". Why would you kill rivalries? It's a huge draw. It's what you WANT.
Click to expand...
The old Southern Conference from years ago had up to 23 members I think. This isn't exactly unprecedented territory.
 
  • Like
Reactions: VFL-82-JP
#34
#34
ArmchairQB said:
Self-explanatory question. As conferences get bigger and bigger, is it even worth it to try to hang onto the notion of rivals when it comes to scheduling? At some point you pass the point of no return, right? Where there are just too many teams and so you know that a particular year's recruiting class will play, say, A&M once, but it'll be at home and they're never going to go to College Station before they graduate or go pro or whatnot. Do you still lock in traditional rivalries in scheduling, knowing that it makes it that much more difficult to do home and away with everyone else?

In a traditional sense, for me, you do it, you keep the rivalries you've been playing for a century... but maybe that's not the conference we're building. The SEC wants to be a power and revenue generating machine, and kids make money to play now... if this is going to be a semi-pro league, then maybe it's time to just go ahead and be a semi-pro league and do rotations the same way the NFL does.

Do you make divisions based on geography? Put traditional rivals in the same division regardless of geography? Do you say some players will never play at this or that stadium and that's fine? How do you slice this pie?
Click to expand...

As the conference gets bigger and as has been put forth in this and other threads, we will be back to "us against the world we know and have lived in". We will be playing basically the same teams as always with a few "other teams" that we will continue to play now and then. These teams now to be played in the conference rather than the SWC or what ever. The difference to me will be the hurt for "little schools" as we and others will need to drop them for a large conference slate.
 
#35
#35
BigOrangeMojo said:
And rivalries draw eyeballs and makes everyone $$$$

There's a reason why UT-Bama draws much higher ratings the past decade than MSU-Bama and it isn't because UT has been the better team....
Click to expand...


I dont recall Bama-Miss ST ever being on CBS except maybe Dak's senior year if then. CBS games always have higher ratings than ESPN games, etc.
 
#40
#40
ArmchairQB said:
Self-explanatory question. As conferences get bigger and bigger, is it even worth it to try to hang onto the notion of rivals when it comes to scheduling? At some point you pass the point of no return, right? Where there are just too many teams and so you know that a particular year's recruiting class will play, say, A&M once, but it'll be at home and they're never going to go to College Station before they graduate or go pro or whatnot. Do you still lock in traditional rivalries in scheduling, knowing that it makes it that much more difficult to do home and away with everyone else?

In a traditional sense, for me, you do it, you keep the rivalries you've been playing for a century... but maybe that's not the conference we're building. The SEC wants to be a power and revenue generating machine, and kids make money to play now... if this is going to be a semi-pro league, then maybe it's time to just go ahead and be a semi-pro league and do rotations the same way the NFL does.

Do you make divisions based on geography? Put traditional rivals in the same division regardless of geography? Do you say some players will never play at this or that stadium and that's fine? How do you slice this pie?
Click to expand...
Yes. For one, they could reduce the amount of OOC games and increase conference games. There could definitely be regular rivalries inner and outer division when this happens. OOC games could be limited to optional televised exhibitions (powder puff teams) as well as an extended playoff and bowl games. National rankings won’t matter so much anymore when all that happens making the inner conference battles that much more fierce. I love the idea of it anyways.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Remy
#41
#41
ArmchairQB said:
Self-explanatory question. As conferences get bigger and bigger, is it even worth it to try to hang onto the notion of rivals when it comes to scheduling? At some point you pass the point of no return, right? Where there are just too many teams and so you know that a particular year's recruiting class will play, say, A&M once, but it'll be at home and they're never going to go to College Station before they graduate or go pro or whatnot. Do you still lock in traditional rivalries in scheduling, knowing that it makes it that much more difficult to do home and away with everyone else?

In a traditional sense, for me, you do it, you keep the rivalries you've been playing for a century... but maybe that's not the conference we're building. The SEC wants to be a power and revenue generating machine, and kids make money to play now... if this is going to be a semi-pro league, then maybe it's time to just go ahead and be a semi-pro league and do rotations the same way the NFL does.

Do you make divisions based on geography? Put traditional rivals in the same division regardless of geography? Do you say some players will never play at this or that stadium and that's fine? How do you slice this pie?
Click to expand...

If the SEC goes past 16 members, I really don't see the point in having a conference. Why not abolish them altogether and let everybody play whoever they want?
 
#42
#42
Not only NO but HECK NO! There will be new rivals and constantly changing winners and losers.
 
New posts
You must log in or register to reply here.

VN Store



Back
Top