B1G

Hooked on Huskers

Hooked on Huskers

New member
kivlVXb.png


5BnXjSb.png


lfbOAh5.png


 
Last edited by a moderator:
After an amazing game against Oregon, Ohio State gets a bye week before playing the Huskers.  But after playing Nebraska, they play Penn State.  So I wonder if OSU will spend a little bit of time during their bye week on Penn State?  Because that would be good for the Huskers.  

 
Crusader Husker said:
Now that OSU lost traveling acrossed the country, expect whining and possibly divisions.  tOSU runs this conference.
Click to expand...
Lol so much truth to this and once Michigan pipes up it’ll be insufferable

I believe it would be best if teams jumping 2+ time zones have kicks that start between 2:30p-5p (central time). I think it’s crap for UW to play Iowa at 11am and different conference but I thought it was crazy that Miami played Cal until what 2am eastern?  

I don’t see this as current model of conferences with geographically differences being sustainable over the long term.

 
Savage Husker said:
Lol so much truth to this and once Michigan pipes up it’ll be insufferable

I believe it would be best if teams jumping 2+ time zones have kicks that start between 2:30p-5p (central time). I think it’s crap for UW to play Iowa at 11am and different conference but I thought it was crazy that Miami played Cal until what 2am eastern?  

I don’t see this as current model of conferences with geographically differences being sustainable over the long term.
Click to expand...




It’s sustainable if it makes money, and it does for the B1G. Not sure about Big 12 or ACC. Eg I don’t really see how it was worth it market-wise for the ACC to add Stanford and California. There can’t be many people who watch them. 

 
Moiraine said:
It’s sustainable if it makes money, and it does for the B1G. Not sure about Big 12 or ACC. Eg I don’t really see how it was worth it market-wise for the ACC to add Stanford and California. There can’t be many people who watch them. 
Click to expand...
Agree - makes no sense at all.  Time to model college football after the NFL with the regional divisions.  Recreate the old Big 8 as one of them and we'd fit right in. 

 
TGHusker said:
Agree - makes no sense at all.  Time to model college football after the NFL with the regional divisions.  Recreate the old Big 8 as one of them and we'd fit right in. 
Click to expand...




Not sure what you agree with about my post.

Regional does not make sense unless revenue is divided equally nationally or you have enough big brands in the region (eg the SEC). The old Big 8 would be a poor conference (financially) to be a part of if revenue is not shared among the 60 teams or whatever it would be. And why would the SEC/B1G ever agree to that?

 
Last edited by a moderator:
Moiraine said:
It’s sustainable if it makes money, and it does for the B1G. Not sure about Big 12 or ACC. Eg I don’t really see how it was worth it market-wise for the ACC to add Stanford and California. There can’t be many people who watch them. 
Click to expand...
Yeah, that’s a fair point, however, I don’t see this current model being the long term solution, more or less it’s a necessary step toward an end goal.

Moiraine said:
Regional does not make sense unless revenue is divided equally nationally or you have enough big brands in the region (eg the SEC). The old Big 8 would be a poor conference (financially) to be a part of if revenue is not shared among the 60 teams or whatever it would be. And why would the SEC/B1G ever agree to that?
Click to expand...
They’ve already begun dividing revenue equally within conferences. Once B1G/SEC squeezes out the ACC and B12, they’ll divvy it all out and restructure the model again.

 
Moiraine said:
Not sure what you agree with about my post.

Regional does not make sense unless revenue is divided equally nationally or you have enough big brands in the region (eg the SEC). The old Big 8 would be a poor conference (financially) to be a part of if revenue is not shared among the 60 teams or whatever it would be. And why would the SEC/B1G ever agree to that?
Click to expand...
Yes- I'm thinking of the 72 ( I believe that was the #) format on one of the threads - there would have to be revenue sharing to make it truly regional.  The old Big 8 couldn't make it on its own.  I'm agreeing with you that the Stanford /Cal thing in the ACC this really doesn't make sense.  The cross country travel has many 'cons' for the 'student' athlete.   Sounds great having a trans-contentment conference but in a practical sense I don't this works out long term.

 
Out of those 10 L's is there a team that lost that was the heavy favorite? The only one that likely fits in that is the USC loss to Minny

Edit: Looks like 8 of the 10 favorites won. 1 of the 2 losses was essentially a toss up (OSU vs Oregon)...sooo, what are we talking about?

 
Last edited by a moderator:
UniversalMartin said:
Out of those 10 L's is there a team that lost that was the heavy favorite? The only one that likely fits in that is the USC loss to Minny

Edit: Looks like 8 of the 10 favorites won. 1 of the 2 losses was essentially a toss up (OSU vs Oregon)...sooo, what are we talking about?
Click to expand...
Fair point but what would the spread have looked like with reverse locations or neutral sites?  I haven't spent the time but guessing a team like ohio state would have been a touchdown or more favorite at home.   Surely vegas is adding a bit more spread on long travel games. 

 
Back
Top