(01-03-2015 05:17 PM)_sturt_ Wrote:  

(01-03-2015 05:06 PM)Wolfman Wrote:  It's just another form of relegation. That only works for a single sport. I realize this is your "plan for FBS." These schools field an average of 20 teams (guessing). It would be a nightmare to track all those teams with this system.

I think we're missing each other here, Wolf.

Please re-read, if you have interest enough to do so. For now I'll just emphasize that this is not an overhaul of conferences, and indeed, it is only for FBS, period.

sturt - I appreciate the effort, but saying that this isn't an overhaul of conferences and that it's only for FBS is kind of like writing the most well thought-out law with the "small" problem of it being unconstitutional or setting forth a great theory of physics that doesn't take into account the existence of gravity. The University of Michigan doesn't ever want to be in the same conference with Eastern Michigan even if EMU wins 100 games in a row. Period. Is it completely elitist with complete disregard to the results on the field? Absolutely. What the heck isn't elitist about American higher education? Schools want to associate with whoever they want to associate with based on pedigree, tradition, academics and markets. I know it infuriates those that want supposed "equality" in college football that all of these off-the-field factors mean as much or more than on-the-field results, but that's the reality. There is no different "paradigm" here. What you're proposing is the same as proposing an unconstitutional law or a physics theory without incorporating the law of gravity where you're asking us to suspend our belief on something so fundamental and basic in order to make a proposal work to your liking. Freedom of association based on whatever factors schools that actually have choices and market power want (as opposed to those without choices and market power, who then of course would want conferences formed by some type of formulaic fiat) is an unchangable fundamental basis of college athletics.

Now, if you want to use your chart to do something much less radical, such as making one or two non-conference games per year based on the prior year's results (similar to how the NFL schedules intra-division games), then at least that's an interesting proposal rooted in some basis of justifiable suspension of disbelief in a "Jurassic Park" science sort of way (where it's completely fiction but you can create a fictional universe rooted in some grounded scientific principles). I just find the concept of taking away every single aspect of what makes a conference into a conference ("It's just for FBS football! It's just for scheduling so everyone can keep their money!") and still trying to call them conferences to be pure sophistry. (It's well-written and detailed sophistry, but sophistry nonetheless.)

And I genuinely appreciate the interest in the topic. I'm just slow to conclude that the framework is getting a complete and fair hearing, ie based on the Michigan / Eastern Michigan reference... (those not only remain in the B1G and MAC repectively, they are placed in separate divisions, with neither particularly likely to be in a position to be relegated or promoted if their histories are any indication ...) plus the assessment that the concept takes "away *every single aspect* of what makes a conference into a conference." That's the kind of overstatement that., when I read it anyway, tends to lead me toward the perception that the reaction is largely steeped in a fundamental difference in beliefs and/or priorities... that we probably don't even agree that the problem is a problem, let alone in the approach to resolving it. I could be wrong of course but the dismissiveness meter on this side of the internet looks to be in the red, so for us to deliberate the plan gets cart before horse... or constitution before declaration of independence if that analogy is preferred. Fair for me to say that or am I out of bounds?

(01-04-2015 03:21 PM)_sturt_ Wrote:  And I appreciate the interest in the topic. I'm just slow to conclude that the framework is getting a complete and fair hearing, ie based on the Michigan / Eastern Michigan reference... (those not only remain in the B1G and MAC repectively, they are placed in separate divisions, with neither particularly likely to be in a position to be relegated or promoted if their histories are any indication ) plus the assessment that the concept takes "away *every single aspect* of what makes a conference into a conference." That's the kind of overstatement that., when I read it anyway, tends to lead me toward the perception that the reaction is largely steeped in a fundamental difference in beliefs and/or priorities... that we probably don't even agree that the problem is a problem, let alone in the approach to resolving it. I could be wrong of course but the dismissiveness meter on this side of the internet looks to be in the red.

What problem are you trying to solve?

I see your solution as an anihilation of rivalries and a disconnect of schools from recruiting grounds in an effort to push through an overly rigid structure that does little more than create turmoil and animosity. I don't see what that fixes.

Conferences determining how they fill a predetermined structure of pre-allocated slots is an innovatively bad idea, and the suggested divisions seems to be based on purely geography. Geography is important, but you are ignoring history, culture, recruiting, competitive balance, etc..

Similarly, predetermined playoff seeding is a terrible idea that really doesn't have an upside.

The idea of another subdivision with relegation and promotion is good. The rest is terrible and needs to be nuked, thought out, and redesigned.

(01-04-2015 03:34 PM)nzmorange Wrote:  I see your solution as an anihilation of rivalries and a disconnect of schools from recruiting grounds in an effort to push through an overly rigid structure that does little more than create turmoil and animosity. I don't see what that fixes.

Conferences determining how they fill a predetermined structure of pre-allocated slots is an innovatively bad idea, and the suggested divisions seems to be based on purely geography. Geography is important, but you are ignoring history, culture, recruiting, competitive balance, etc..

Similarly, predetermined playoff seeding is a terrible idea that really doesn't have an upside.

The idea of another subdivision with relegation and promotion is good. The rest is terrible and needs to be nuked, thought out, and redesigned.

I'm handicapped today... pecking on a Kindle and without my laptop... please grant me some indulgence b/c I see that you offered some meat this time and I'd like to respect that effort with an appropriate reply. For now I'll just say that I think I may have failed to effectively convey some things b/c your interpretation has some inaccuracies, at least, that is, in comparison to the current state of the format--particularly so in the 14 member conferences.

(I'll have laptop access tomorrow.)

(01-04-2015 03:21 PM)_sturt_ Wrote:  And I genuinely appreciate the interest in the topic. I'm just slow to conclude that the framework is getting a complete and fair hearing, ie based on the Michigan / Eastern Michigan reference... (those not only remain in the B1G and MAC repectively, they are placed in separate divisions, with neither particularly likely to be in a position to be relegated or promoted if their histories are any indication ...) plus the assessment that the concept takes "away *every single aspect* of what makes a conference into a conference." That's the kind of overstatement that., when I read it anyway, tends to lead me toward the perception that the reaction is largely steeped in a fundamental difference in beliefs and/or priorities... that we probably don't even agree that the problem is a problem, let alone in the approach to resolving it. I could be wrong of course but the dismissiveness meter on this side of the internet looks to be in the red, so for us to deliberate the plan gets cart before horse... or constitution before declaration of independence if that analogy is preferred. Fair for me to say that or am I out of bounds?

Personally, no, I don't see a problem that needs fixing, so there's definitely that fundamental disconnect. However, my opinion doesn't mean much. What matters much more is that those in power definitely don't see a problem. In fact, they're institutionalizing the current power structure with the new NCAA autonomy rules, which is even beyond the free market money and TV value factors that had long been in place. I'm also a Big Ten grad and I feel that actually means something more than football scheduling - other Big Ten grads have similar academic and social experiences. When I say that I went to a "Big Ten school", it goes far beyond football games and we all have that common bond. My alma mater isn't throwing all of that away in some type of promotion/relegation system and neither are its fellow Big Ten schools even if the risk is supposedly low. The other power conferences are going to feel the same way. The Pac-12 doesn't want to be in a conference with Boise State based on academic issues and prestige, which I'm perfectly fine with even though Boise is clearly a great program on-the-field.

Here's the fundamental difference: I and, more importantly, the power brokers in college sports look at conferences as being made up as *institutions*. Many fans only want conferences to be made up of football programs, which is quite different and simply isn't how it works. Sure, the programs that *don't* have market and/or academic power, such as the Eastern Michigans of the world, would love to have some type of formula where they win a certain number of games and then they get to displace Purdue in the Big Ten, but there is ZERO reason for Purdue (or even Ohio State or Michigan) to ever agree to that or want that. The playoff is a sidebar to conference power as opposed to the driving force.

(01-04-2015 08:14 PM)Frank the Tank Wrote:  

(01-04-2015 03:21 PM)_sturt_ Wrote:  And I genuinely appreciate the interest in the topic. I'm just slow to conclude that the framework is getting a complete and fair hearing, ie based on the Michigan / Eastern Michigan reference... (those not only remain in the B1G and MAC repectively, they are placed in separate divisions, with neither particularly likely to be in a position to be relegated or promoted if their histories are any indication ...) plus the assessment that the concept takes "away *every single aspect* of what makes a conference into a conference." That's the kind of overstatement that., when I read it anyway, tends to lead me toward the perception that the reaction is largely steeped in a fundamental difference in beliefs and/or priorities... that we probably don't even agree that the problem is a problem, let alone in the approach to resolving it. I could be wrong of course but the dismissiveness meter on this side of the internet looks to be in the red, so for us to deliberate the plan gets cart before horse... or constitution before declaration of independence if that analogy is preferred. Fair for me to say that or am I out of bounds?

Personally, no, I don't see a problem that needs fixing, so there's definitely that fundamental disconnect. However, my opinion doesn't mean much. What matters much more is that those in power definitely don't see a problem. In fact, they're institutionalizing the current power structure with the new NCAA autonomy rules, which is even beyond the free market money and TV value factors that had long been in place. I'm also a Big Ten grad and I feel that actually means something more than football scheduling - other Big Ten grads have similar academic and social experiences. When I say that I went to a "Big Ten school", it goes far beyond football games and we all have that common bond. My alma mater isn't throwing all of that away in some type of promotion/relegation system and neither are its fellow Big Ten schools even if the risk is supposedly low. The other power conferences are going to feel the same way. The Pac-12 doesn't want to be in a conference with Boise State based on academic issues and prestige, which I'm perfectly fine with even though Boise is clearly a great program on-the-field.

Here's the fundamental difference: I and, more importantly, the power brokers in college sports look at conferences as being made up as *institutions*. Many fans only want conferences to be made up of football programs, which is quite different and simply isn't how it works. Sure, the programs that *don't* have market and/or academic power, such as the Eastern Michigans of the world, would love to have some type of formula where they win a certain number of games and then they get to displace Purdue in the Big Ten, but there is ZERO reason for Purdue (or even Ohio State or Michigan) to ever agree to that or want that. The playoff is a sidebar to conference power as opposed to the driving force.

You think pretty highly of yourself don't ya Frankie?

(01-04-2015 08:14 PM)Frank the Tank Wrote:  Personally, no, I don't see a problem that needs fixing, so there's definitely that fundamental disconnect. [...and furthermore, no one in authority sees a problem.]

So, indeed, we have to back up and have a whole additional and somewhat different conversation, for the same reasons it wouldn't have served reason for James Madison to outline what the constitution should look like to those who didn't see any reason to break away from England in the first place.

I'll only just say this much. Two relatively brief things.

1. Contrary to the quick read given the framework, and then, the judgement based on that quick read... Big Ten teams would actually have flexibility/opportunity to play each other with more frequency under this framework than they have under their EXISTING scheduling policies... and, further contrary, while the football scheduling piece is a significant one, it is the ONLY piece that is re-engineered.

2. The horse is out of the barn now that there is a real playoff to a real national championship game. To wit, for how many years were we were told (???)...

(a) there would never be a national championship game--the bowl system was too entrenched... and what happened?... we got a national championship game... and then,

(b) there would never be a playoff to the national championship game--how would we ever expect fans to travel to two different locations, after all?... and what happened?... we got a playoff... and then,

(c ) there would never be anything more than a 4-team playoff--no real reason for that, but the CFP website says so, so we should just hush up... and what's happened?...

Well, we're only in Year 1, but anyone paying any attention knows there's already been public support for expansion uttered by, not just fans, but FBS administrators...

Finishing up...

Look, I said from the first comments in the very first post on the topic, I don't offer this format as the next era in the evolution... I don't even offer this format as the format--only that it is an effort to try to imagine what could be under the ideals and priorities that seem most enduring and ethical... and regardless, I think there's something that will occur in-between what we have now and whatever that ultimately-satisfying format is (ie, in the same way that NFL or any other sports league's format is satisfying).

But I do believe that the fundamentals that will guide that evolution will be similar to what we've seen in the greater political context... ie, that while the free market says there shouldn't be a presumption of the equality of outcomes, on the other hand, there should be a presumption of the equality of opportunity... that the Butlers of football should have a path, just like the Butlers of basketball do. I believe the very fact that in the last 20 years we've evolved to have a playoff and a national championship game pretty firmly demonstrates that public outcry matters, albeit because public outcry is representative that there is money to be made and otherwise being left on the table. It's the exact same thing that led us to a March Madness.

(I feel football would have already duplicated March Madness, except that it has been confounded by its one-game-per-week standard and its bowl apparatus that had to be contemplated.)

The math, then... ie 128 teams that fit neatly into 4 region boxes, each containing a higher and lower competition box of 16 teams divided into reasonable sub-regions... and all with minimal additional number of games required within the mandate that it all be completed before the Spring semester starts... is what drives the rest of the framework.

(01-04-2015 03:34 PM)nzmorange Wrote:  What problem are you trying to solve?

Whether or not you agree it is a "problem," objectively speaking, it is the case that we have a football playoff and a national championship for a class of teams that all meet certain criteria in order to be in that class, and yet, access to that playoff and championship is fundamentally constricted.

I believe there should be some constriction, but not to the point that only 3% of the 128 teams are granted a path.

Further and just as importantly, there are 65 of the 128 teams that, by virtue of their historical standing only, get to have the opportunity to play a slate of opponents that would naturally grant them the further opportunity to be part of that 3%.

Subjectively speaking--but you know and I know it is not without strong evidence--I would suggest that that is artificially manipulating the system.

What I mean is, I don't begrudge Ohio State its inherent preference... but that, based on performance, not on its simple membership in a particular conference.

Where I do begrudge is the lower half of that conference, if not lower 2/3 their inherent preference... because it is not earned.

(01-04-2015 03:34 PM)nzmorange Wrote:  I see your solution as an anihilation of rivalries and a disconnect of schools from recruiting grounds in an effort to push through an overly rigid structure that does little more than create turmoil and animosity. I don't see what that fixes.

Where is this annihilation of rivalries? Where is this disconnect of schools from recruiting grounds?

Conferences themselves control where to slot each of their schools in any given year (only exceptions being the #8 Golds and #1 Silvers, which stick in the division of the preceding season).

And here's a sticking point that I really wish you'd let marinate in your head for a moment... how many SEC rivalries were largely severed by virtue of adding Missouri and Texas A&M?... and, how many of those same SEC rivalries would under this framework have the chance to, at least, be re-instituted on a bi-annual basis if desired?...

Answer? All of them, my friend.

(01-04-2015 03:34 PM)nzmorange Wrote:  Conferences determining how they fill a predetermined structure of pre-allocated slots is an innovatively bad idea,

I'd answer this, but I don't understand what you maintain makes it "bad."

(01-04-2015 03:34 PM)nzmorange Wrote:  and the suggested divisions seems to be based on purely geography. Geography is important, but you are ignoring history, culture, recruiting, competitive balance, etc..

The suggested divisions merely achieve two things: (1) paint a picture of what the first year might look like, and (2) provide some basis for designating a reasonable number of slots for each conference to fill in each region.

They are not static, and so, again, conferences have the flexibility to entertain individual schools' preferences.

And I have to beg you to recognize that the existing system, most would say because of the influence of TV, has now watered down "history, culture, recruiting, competitive balance"... so, I would argue that it's hard to argue against a system that, then, at least somewhat reconciles that circumstance... ie, it allows conferences flexibility to, at least from a regular season scheduling standpoint, better address history, culture, etc... if you're not sure what I'm getting at, ask, WVU, Missouri, Maryland, Texas A&M and a few others whether there's greater shared history and culture in the existing system or in the one proposed... and it's not like the proposed one does any great damage to the others... that's because the slotting--the lack of static divisions--allows conferences to adjust annually to accommodate preferences.

Notably, the transportation system of the US dictated when college football was in its infancy that geography mattered... and so, Big XII WVU shares more with Pitt naturally than they do with their closes Big XII peer... Missouri shares more with Kansas than they do with their closest SEC peer.

(01-04-2015 03:34 PM)nzmorange Wrote:  Similarly, predetermined playoff seeding is a terrible idea that really doesn't have an upside.

I'd comment, but I don't know what is regarded as a better alternative. Almost any tournament in any sport seeds teams according to their accomplishments in pool (ie regular season) play.

(01-04-2015 03:34 PM)nzmorange Wrote:  The idea of another subdivision with relegation and promotion is good.

Yes, but limited relegation... I'm not interested in threatening the upper crust programs that historically have proven they annually perform at a level that is at minimum in the upper half of all FBS... I only see it as legitimate for the schools below that mark to be vulnerable. Same goes for the promotion side... I'm not interested in providing a path for advancement to anyone but the upper crust programs of the non-contract conferences.

(01-05-2015 11:19 AM)_sturt_ Wrote:  

(01-04-2015 08:14 PM)Frank the Tank Wrote:  Personally, no, I don't see a problem that needs fixing, so there's definitely that fundamental disconnect. [...and furthermore, no one in authority sees a problem.]

So, indeed, we have to back up and have a whole additional and somewhat different conversation, for the same reasons it wouldn't have served reason for James Madison to outline what the constitution should look like to those who didn't see any reason to break away from England in the first place.

I'll only just say this much. Two relatively brief things.

1. Contrary to the quick read given the framework, and then, the judgement based on that quick read... Big Ten teams would actually have flexibility/opportunity to play each other with more frequency under this framework than they have under their EXISTING scheduling policies... and, further contrary, while the football scheduling piece is a significant one, it is the ONLY piece that is re-engineered.

2. The horse is out of the barn now that there is a real playoff to a real national championship game. To wit, for how many years were we were told (???)...

(a) there would never be a national championship game--the bowl system was too entrenched... and what happened?... we got a national championship game... and then,

(b) there would never be a playoff to the national championship game--how would we ever expect fans to travel to two different locations, after all?... and what happened?... we got a playoff... and then,

(c ) there would never be anything more than a 4-team playoff--no real reason for that, but the CFP website says so, so we should just hush up... and what's happened?...

Well, we're only in Year 1, but anyone paying any attention knows there's already been public support for expansion uttered by, not just fans, but FBS administrators...

Finishing up...

Look, I said from the first comments in the very first post on the topic, I don't offer this format as the next era in the evolution... I don't even offer this format as the format--only that it is an effort to try to imagine what could be under the ideals and priorities that seem most enduring and ethical... and regardless, I think there's something that will occur in-between what we have now and whatever that ultimately-satisfying format is (ie, in the same way that NFL or any other sports league's format is satisfying).

But I do believe that the fundamentals that will guide that evolution will be similar to what we've seen in the greater political context... ie, that while the free market says there shouldn't be a presumption of the equality of outcomes, on the other hand, there should be a presumption of the equality of opportunity... that the Butlers of football should have a path, just like the Butlers of basketball do. I believe the very fact that in the last 20 years we've evolved to have a playoff and a national championship game pretty firmly demonstrates that public outcry matters, albeit because public outcry is representative that there is money to be made and otherwise being left on the table. It's the exact same thing that led us to a March Madness.

(I feel football would have already duplicated March Madness, except that it has been confounded by its one-game-per-week standard and its bowl apparatus that had to be contemplated.)

The math, then... ie 128 teams that fit neatly into 4 region boxes, each containing a higher and lower competition box of 16 teams divided into reasonable sub-regions... and all with minimal additional number of games required within the mandate that it all be completed before the Spring semester starts... is what drives the rest of the framework.

The core problem that I see is that you're mixing two vastly different things.

The desire for and growth of the playoff system is a completely separate issue from the construction of conferences. There can definitely be growth in the playoff system (IMHO, it will eventually go to 8 teams) without any impact to the structure of conferences. I've thought that for quite a long time and I'm probably perceived to be a "Lord Business" voice of the power conferences. (You can see posts on my blog from as far back as 2006 about how to create an 8-team playoff.)

If anything, the only way that the playoff expands is if it *preserves* the power conference structure. That's the only way that they'll allow for an 8-team playoff (or however large it might be) to get created in the first place. Just look at how we have progressed from no championship game at all to the BCS and then to the CFP. While you argue that this is evidence of some sort of liberation, all that I see is that the power conferences have actually grabbed MORE power with each and every step. In fact, the power leagues went out and killed off one of their own before each step in order to consolidate power even further (see the SWC prior to formation of the BCS and the Big East football league prior to the CFP).

At the same time (and I've had this argument many times here and on my blog), I believe there's a huge difference between the psyche of what college football fans want in a playoff compared to what people like in the NCAA Tournament. The path for the Butler-types is certainly romanticized in the NCAA Tournament (although note that Butler itself got snapped up by the most valuable non-FBS Division I league that now gets paid more TV money just for basketball than the non-power FBS conferences get paid for both football and basketball). However, when college football fans have clamored for a playoff, it's specifically because they want to see the heavyweights go at each other like the Ohio State vs. Alabama game. You can have the superfluous first round of the NCAA Tournament that incorporates small schools because everyone can play another game 2 days later, but that's MUCH different than having football teams (where you need at least a week between games and there's a large injury risk for every time that people step on the field) go through the motions of "playoff" games that look like crappy early September non-conference guarantee matchups.

Did fans find it to be inequitable that Boise State couldn't compete for the national championship when it was undefeated in 2009? Sure, and I'd agree that there ought to be a path to the title for teams like that no matter which conference that they're from. However, I don't think that you'd find anyone without a vested non-power conference bias that thinks the playoff would have been improved by including Boise State this year simply in the name of on-paper "equality".

Having said all of that, I'm actually fine with an 8-team playoff reserving a spot for the best G5 conference champ. I just don't think that has any relation whatsoever from changing up the conferences as we know them. Saying that it "just applies to FBS football" or that "scheduling policies could allow current teams to play each other more" is disregarding MASSIVE implications regarding the autonomy that the power conferences are forcing upon the rest of the NCAA (lest the power conferences will go out and kill the NCAA entirely and give NO access to any type of playoff for the non-power leagues in ANY sport, even on paper, much less "just" for football).

Conferences should be able to completely control who they want in their leagues, completely control how they want to schedule their games, and completely control whether they want to expand the playoff. That control in and of itself is what matters (even more than money) and has driven every single decision in college sports ever since the Supreme Court called the *NCAA* a walking antitrust violation when they attempted to equitably distribute TV appearances and money. Saying that "conference mates *might* play each other more" isn't good enough. The power conferences don't have any "might" in their vocabulary right now. Instead, they have 100% guarantees, which they would be insane to give up (and they won't).

(01-05-2015 12:04 PM)_sturt_ Wrote:  Yes, but limited relegation... I'm not interested in threatening the upper crust programs that historically have proven they annually perform at a level that is at minimum in the upper half of all FBS... I only see it as legitimate for the schools below that mark to be vulnerable. Same goes for the promotion side... I'm not interested in providing a path for advancement to anyone but the upper crust programs of the non-contract conferences.

Even the best programs end up dipping below that mark at certain points. Look at Michigan, Penn State, Florida, Texas, USC and even pre-Saban Alabama in recent years. Why would any power conference program want ANY chance of getting relegated? Even a 99% chance isn't good enough for the power conferences. The power conferences need 100% guarantees. Michigan doesn't want anything to do with Eastern Michigan EVER. USC doesn't want anything to do with San Jose State EVER. Texas doesn't want anything to do with North Texas EVER. That will NOT change regardless of how many wins those smaller schools might attain.

Once again, power conferences want *institutions*. That's much different than wanting football programs where the results can change wildly from year-to-year.

(01-05-2015 12:15 PM)Frank the Tank Wrote:  The core problem that I see is that you're mixing two vastly different things.

The desire for and growth of the playoff system is a completely separate issue from the construction of conferences. There can definitely be growth in the playoff system (IMHO, it will eventually go to 8 teams) without any impact to the structure of conferences.

I stop here because we're talking past each other.

You maintain that this "impacts the structure of conferences."

I maintain that "structure" is too broad a term... as stated before...

Quote:Contrary to the quick read given the framework, and then, the judgement based on that quick read... Big Ten teams would actually have flexibility/opportunity to play each other with more frequency under this framework than they have under their EXISTING scheduling policies... and, further contrary, while the football scheduling piece is a significant one, it is the ONLY piece that is re-engineered.

Conferences' slotting allows flexibility in the "pool play" portion of a season, which is related to ensuring a playoff that is inherently fair to the teams that are in the class that have met the criteria necessary to be part of that class.

Again, here's one of the specimen schedules... Iowa in this case... just for some tangible reference...



(One clearly could argue that the biggest difference to Gold schools' schedules is just this: No more FCS schools like Northern Iowa.)

Unfortunately, I'm limited on time because you've provided some additional meat to be addressed. But I'm not even sure that this thread is the right place for it anyhow... again, you're wanting to deal with Declaration of Independence issues, and this is a thread that assumes certain priorities and thus is more like one that deals with Constitution issues.

Are you aware if there is another thread where this line of discussion is already occurring? I'm happy to jump over, if so.

Just caught your additional post, Frank...

(01-05-2015 12:24 PM)Frank the Tank Wrote:  

(01-05-2015 12:04 PM)_sturt_ Wrote:  Yes, but limited relegation... I'm not interested in threatening the upper crust programs that historically have proven they annually perform at a level that is at minimum in the upper half of all FBS... I only see it as legitimate for the schools below that mark to be vulnerable. Same goes for the promotion side... I'm not interested in providing a path for advancement to anyone but the upper crust programs of the non-contract conferences.

Even the best programs end up dipping below that mark at certain points. Look at Michigan, Penn State, Florida, Texas, USC and even pre-Saban Alabama in recent years.

I would be surprised to learn that in my lifetime (50+ years) any of those you just listed experienced being one of the 8 worst teams among the 65 contract conference schools.

(01-05-2015 12:24 PM)Frank the Tank Wrote:  Why would any power conference program want ANY chance of getting relegated? Even a 99% chance isn't good enough for the power conferences. The power conferences need 100% guarantees. Michigan doesn't want anything to do with Eastern Michigan EVER. USC doesn't want anything to do with San Jose State EVER. Texas doesn't want anything to do with North Texas EVER. That will NOT change regardless of how many wins those smaller schools might attain.

Once again, power conferences want *institutions*. That's much different than wanting football programs where the results can change wildly from year-to-year.

(Addressed this in previous response.)

(01-05-2015 12:04 PM)_sturt_ Wrote:  

(01-04-2015 03:34 PM)nzmorange Wrote:  What problem are you trying to solve?

Whether or not you agree it is a "problem," objectively speaking, it is the case that we have a football playoff and a national championship for a class of teams that all meet certain criteria in order to be in that class, and yet, access to that playoff and championship is fundamentally constricted.

I believe there should be some constriction, but not to the point that only 3% of the 128 teams are granted a path.

Further and just as importantly, there are 65 of the 128 teams that, by virtue of their historical standing only, get to have the opportunity to play a slate of opponents that would naturally grant them the further opportunity to be part of that 3%.

Subjectively speaking--but you know and I know it is not without strong evidence--I would suggest that that is artificially manipulating the system.

What I mean is, I don't begrudge Ohio State its inherent preference... but that, based on performance, not on its simple membership in a particular conference.

Where I do begrudge is the lower half of that conference, if not lower 2/3 their inherent preference... because it is not earned.

(01-04-2015 03:34 PM)nzmorange Wrote:  I see your solution as an anihilation of rivalries and a disconnect of schools from recruiting grounds in an effort to push through an overly rigid structure that does little more than create turmoil and animosity. I don't see what that fixes.

Where is this annihilation of rivalries? Where is this disconnect of schools from recruiting grounds?

Conferences themselves control where to slot each of their schools in any given year (only exceptions being the #8 Golds and #1 Silvers, which stick in the division of the preceding season).

And here's a sticking point that I really wish you'd let marinate in your head for a moment... how many SEC rivalries were largely severed by virtue of adding Missouri and Texas A&M?... and, how many of those same SEC rivalries would under this framework have the chance to, at least, be re-instituted on a bi-annual basis if desired?...

Answer? All of them, my friend.

(01-04-2015 03:34 PM)nzmorange Wrote:  Conferences determining how they fill a predetermined structure of pre-allocated slots is an innovatively bad idea,

I'd answer this, but I don't understand what you maintain makes it "bad."

(01-04-2015 03:34 PM)nzmorange Wrote:  and the suggested divisions seems to be based on purely geography. Geography is important, but you are ignoring history, culture, recruiting, competitive balance, etc..

The suggested divisions merely achieve two things: (1) paint a picture of what the first year might look like, and (2) provide some basis for designating a reasonable number of slots for each conference to fill in each region.

They are not static, and so, again, conferences have the flexibility to entertain individual schools' preferences.

And I have to beg you to recognize that the existing system, most would say because of the influence of TV, has now watered down "history, culture, recruiting, competitive balance"... so, I would argue that it's hard to argue against a system that, then, at least somewhat reconciles that circumstance... ie, it allows conferences flexibility to, at least from a regular season scheduling standpoint, better address history, culture, etc... if you're not sure what I'm getting at, ask, WVU, Missouri, Maryland, Texas A&M and a few others whether there's greater shared history and culture in the existing system or in the one proposed... and it's not like the proposed one does any great damage to the others... that's because the slotting--the lack of static divisions--allows conferences to adjust annually to accommodate preferences.

Notably, the transportation system of the US dictated when college football was in its infancy that geography mattered... and so, Big XII WVU shares more with Pitt naturally than they do with their closes Big XII peer... Missouri shares more with Kansas than they do with their closest SEC peer.

(01-04-2015 03:34 PM)nzmorange Wrote:  Similarly, predetermined playoff seeding is a terrible idea that really doesn't have an upside.

I'd comment, but I don't know what is regarded as a better alternative. Almost any tournament in any sport seeds teams according to their accomplishments in pool (ie regular season) play.

(01-04-2015 03:34 PM)nzmorange Wrote:  The idea of another subdivision with relegation and promotion is good.

Yes, but limited relegation... I'm not interested in threatening the upper crust programs that historically have proven they annually perform at a level that is at minimum in the upper half of all FBS... I only see it as legitimate for the schools below that mark to be vulnerable. Same goes for the promotion side... I'm not interested in providing a path for advancement to anyone but the upper crust programs of the non-contract conferences.

1. There are easier and better ways to solve your problem. Have 8 conferences with 8 team each per level and have an upper level and a lower level (well, technically middle level if you count FCS).

2. As for your claim that your system doesn't kill rivalries, it's hard to argue that because I would have to show every single possible combination, which would take forever and a day to do. However, I'm actually pretty sure that I understood your system before your clarification, so again I say: "arbitrarily giving conferences predetermined slots to fill is a terrible idea because it kills rivalries in the name of fitting an arbitrary restriction." Using your suggested allocations, which I assume you think is the best/most likely combination under your restrictions, then off the bat, Tennessee loses every real in-conference rivalry game that they have - Alabama, Florida, and Georgia to a lesser extent (Vandy and UK are more rivalries in name). UT would also have a recruiting disconnect in that it would lose games and exposure in South Carolina, Georgia, and Florida, which is where UT has successfully recruited in the past. There are many more examples, but I think that it illustrates my point. I know that the SEC could either move UT (or the other schools) around, or some up with some elaborate rotation, but with a predetermined number of slots, maintaining meaningful games is impossible. There just aren't enough slots in some cases and too many in others. It's an innovative idea, but it's also a terrible idea.

On a more macro level, attaching strings to anything is generally utility-minimizing. Think about it, would you rather have $20, or a $20 gift certificate to a store that I choose? I'll take the cash and the freedom to spend it how I want, when I want.

3. When you claim that your system erases the "watering down" effects of history, competitive balance, etc. because you arranged everything geographically, then you seem to be advocating that the other concerns do not matter. That's false. I get that conferences can allot schools how they see fit, but the number of allotment slots is based purely on geography, which forces weird groupings. For example, splitting ND from Pitt and BC because there are only 3 schools that are geographically located in the northeast, so there were only 3 ACC slots and SU, BC, and Pitt are pretty much a package is not well thought-out and needlessly clumsy. Even though ND is technically in the Midwest, it would make way more sense to put it in the northeast, playing Pitt, BC, PSU, SU, and RU. There are a number of other examples, but as you can see, if you are going to use an allotting system (which is a terrible idea), there are a number of factors that matter beyond geography.

4. As for seeding, you identified a MUCH better system in your own response. Do it by merit, not a predetermined order. Every other sport on the planet does it that way for a reason. Changing that system might be innovative and neat, but it won't be as effective.

(01-05-2015 03:08 PM)nzmorange Wrote:  1. There are easier and better ways to solve your problem. Have 8 conferences with 8 team each per level and have an upper level and a lower level (well, technically middle level if you count FCS).

This is in the ballpark, with one big but...

But... as has been legitimately stated ad nausem by others whose priorities aren't congrent with what's set out here... these schools that are in conferences together for the most part want to be associated with each other. Thus, anything that's going to occur has to allow them to continue that association with minimal adjustment to how they're currently associating with each other...and moreover, with no ripple effects to other sports.

(01-05-2015 03:08 PM)nzmorange Wrote:  2. As for your claim that your system doesn't kill rivalries, it's hard to argue that because I would have to show every single possible combination, which would take forever and a day to do. However, I'm actually pretty sure that I understood your system before your clarification, so again I say: "arbitrarily giving conferences predetermined slots to fill is a terrible idea because it kills rivalries in the name of fitting an arbitrary restriction." Using your suggested allocations, which I assume you think is the best/most likely combination under your restrictions, then off the bat, Tennessee loses every real in-conference rivalry game that they have - Alabama, Florida, and Georgia to a lesser extent (Vandy and UK are more rivalries in name). UT would also have a recruiting disconnect in that it would lose games and exposure in South Carolina, Georgia, and Florida, which is where UT has successfully recruited in the past.

Someway somehow we're missing each other.

This is your point that I was addressing when I said in my last post...

Quote:"Conferences themselves control where to slot each of their schools in any given year (only exceptions being the #8 Golds and #1 Silvers, which stick in the division of the preceding season)....

The suggested divisions merely achieve two things: (1) paint a picture of what the first year might look like, and (2) provide some basis for designating a reasonable number of slots for each conference to fill in each region.

They are not static, and so, again, conferences have the flexibility to entertain individual schools' preferences....

...the slotting--the lack of static divisions--allows conferences to adjust annually to accommodate preferences."

Thus, can you see now... to the contrary... that the SEC would have the authority to conceivably slot Tennessee every year to play those teams you mentioned?

I hope so.

(01-05-2015 03:08 PM)nzmorange Wrote:  There are many more examples, but I think that it illustrates my point. I know that the SEC could either move UT (or the other schools) around, or some up with some elaborate rotation, but with a predetermined number of slots, maintaining meaningful games is impossible. There just aren't enough slots in some cases and too many in others. It's an innovative idea, but it's also a terrible idea.

Ahh. Dang. So, you wrote all of that, leading me to think we were speaking past each other, then you write this that shows you understood the point all along... *sigh*

Okay, so your problem, instead then, is "there just aren't enough slots in some (divisions), and too many in others."

May I counter?

First, I acknowledge that there is indeed a conundrum.

Second, I challenge that the conundrum isn't any different than the one that currently exists. If you're an SEC fan, you know how upset several of those schools were that, by adding #13 and #14, they were going to be forced into some games they didn't want to have to play and to the exclusion of playing others that they wanted to play much more regularly.

So, you know why I can say with such certainty that the existing system is more constrictive, and the proposed one would be an improvement?

(Maybe you're ahead of me, so forgive me if by saying it, it seems I'm suggesting you weren't intelligent enough to pick up on it...)

Because the existing one is static. Everyone is locked-in and has to conform to a system that has no mechanism to allow for Alabama-Georgia on a more regular basis or Tennessee-Auburn, and yet forces--in spite of some rather public statements by university athletics employees--schools to play one another every season that would rather not... Florida and LSU being one, TAMU and South Carolina being another.

The proposed one allows the SEC to accommodate ALL of their members at least some of the time, if not most of the time, if not all of the time.

Then, last but not least on this point...

There are 3 self-scheduled openings for every school. In any year they aren't otherwise scheduled, any two schools can accommodate a desired game.

Can't get that with the existing system... SEC doesn't want (and I assume wouldn't permit) Tennessee to play Auburn in any year that they aren't scheduled by the conference itself b/c it would mess up the mandated system.

The proposed framework, though, welcomes them doing so, whenever they desire... it doesn't complicate things in the least.

(01-05-2015 03:08 PM)nzmorange Wrote:  On a more macro level, attaching strings to anything is generally utility-minimizing. Think about it, would you rather have $20, or a $20 gift certificate to a store that I choose? I'll take the cash and the freedom to spend it how I want, when I want.

Hold up. Really, that's MY analogy... :)... It, instead, goes this way...

Would you rather have have a coupon that lets you acquire a specific $20 solid blue shirt from the shirt store every year, or would you prefer a $20 gift certificate that allows you buy the color and style shirt you want?

The existing system gives you a coupon redeemable for a game against a game pre-mandated by the store's (conference's) system.

The proposed system gives you a gift certificate redeemable for a game against one of any of the opponents within the store (ie, your conference), determined by the store with each new annual visit.

(01-05-2015 03:08 PM)nzmorange Wrote:  the number of allotment slots is based purely on geography, which forces weird groupings. For example, splitting ND from Pitt and BC because there are only 3 schools that are geographically located in the northeast, so there were only 3 ACC slots and SU, BC, and Pitt are pretty much a package is not well thought-out and needlessly clumsy. Even though ND is technically in the Midwest, it would make way more sense to put it in the northeast, playing Pitt, BC, PSU, SU, and RU. There are a number of other examples, but as you can see, if you are going to use an allotting system (which is a terrible idea), there are a number of factors that matter beyond geography.

Might not have caught this, but first and foremost... ND, in particular, is a special case... they consider themselves a national university, and one of the benefits of the proposed framework allows them exactly that... they get to cycle through every region.

Here's an overall theme that is prevalent in this comment, and that I think needs to be addressed explictly...

Whereas you or anyone on this forum can (and obviously do) argue any given plotting out of how the FBS schools ought to be grouped together in some newly-ordained static conferences for any given number of priorities and any given order of priorities...

THIS framework is one that sets up some broad geographic guidelines and somewhat more specific competition-level guidelines, but then turns over the specifics to 10 decision-making authorities--ie, the 5 contract conferences and 5 non-contract conferences--to determine for themselves how they want to actually assign specific schools to pool-play groups on a constantly-evolving annual basis.

(01-05-2015 03:08 PM)nzmorange Wrote:  4. As for seeding, you identified a MUCH better system in your own response. Do it by merit, not a predetermined order. Every other sport on the planet does it that way for a reason. Changing that system might be innovative and neat, but it won't be as effective.

I'm still lost on this one... playoff seeding is, indeed, earned on the field... but maybe where we're missing each other is in this: there is always the potential if not likelihood of ties, and for that, obviously, there has to be some predetermined tiebreakers.

Having said all of this, I appreciate the interest and comprehension adequate enough to discuss it all. Sincerely, thanks for that.

1. If you think your approach only minimally affects the current system, you're nuts.

2. You are ignoring opportunity costs. Move Tennessee and a new problem arises. The only way to not play an eternal game a whack-a-mole is to let schools do what they want in a completely unregulated environment. Your slotting system constrains that freedom. ND, SU, Pitt, BC, and PSU could not all be in the same division under your system. If things blew up and conferences were designed from scratch, there is a very good chance that they would all be in the same conference. So, if you are radically changing the collegiate landscape anyway, which you are, why oppose it?

[EDIT: I know you kind of addressed this, but I think that the point still stands - what's the value add of having slots? Why not either just remove conferences from the equation or align 8 team conferences as tightly as possible and let schools do what they want OOC? Why force schools together? Sure, I get that the current system forces schools together and this theoretically allows freedom to essentially jump around bowl pools, but at the end of the day you are still forcing schools together, albeit to a different degree and in a different way. But, if that's one of the problems that you are trying to fix, why perpetuate it? Why not fix it?]

-Also, FWIW, UT can play Auburn "OOC" under the current system, even in years where they play Auburn in-conference. Syracuse almost got stuck playing Rutgers twice in one year (once "OOC") when someone bailed on both of us at the last minute (maybe when WVU left).

3. You didn't really address my point here. If you are going to use a slot system, use more than geography to determine how many slots each conference gets. Failure to do so will create political issues (i.e. splitting up NC, Texas, and/or Cali schools), lost rivalries (see whack-a-mole comment), and recruiting issues (see whack-a-mole comment).

4. The winner of the National Division of the Orange Bowl pool will play the winner of the American Division of the Orange Bowl pool in the Orange Bowl, right? That is predetermined seeding. The American Division OB pool team might be the #1 team in the land, whereas the National Division team might be the #2 team in the land. Having them face off in the first round as opposed to seeding everyone based off of rankings is dumb. I get that #1 and #2 might be in the same division, but you can't really help the division setup because those results aren't known until after the season. You can, however, change post season bowl matchups based on knownledge known at the end of the season.

*****
I honestly think that the best way to "fix"college football is with an all-powerful governing body and 8 conferences of 8 teams each in an upper level of FBS and 8 conferences of 8 teams each in a lower level of FBS with promotion/relegation like you described in your system. For the purposes of every other sport, the conferences would remain as is. However, for football, the conferences would be self-selected by the member schools in whatever structure they saw fit (presumably along historical lines tracing back to when each conference was comprised of roughly 8 schools). The season would be 13-14 games long (including a spring game against a fcs team if they're willing to play or a game pitting an upper level FBS school against a lower level FBS school - unless the school opted to sub that game for a game against another game against another FBS team of the same tier). The all powerful governing body would negotiate tier 1 TV rights and distribute, assign bowl matchups, and dictate at least some OOC scheduling (2-4 games/year). Each conference would send 1 school to an 8 team playoff to determine a champion, 1 school would host a bowl, and one school would travel for a bowl. The same would be true for the lower division. Essentially it would be like the NFL. Obviously the big schools would oppose such changes because it would create equality, but the change would maximize interest for the sport as a whole.

Otherwise, I like the idea of an 8 team playoff, joint-negotiated TV contracts, and everyone being indy.

And by "fix," I mean maximize revenue/interest for the system as a whole.

(01-05-2015 09:50 PM)nzmorange Wrote:  1. If you think your approach only minimally affects the current system, you're nuts.

Unnecessarily contentious. To the contrary, I said...

Quote:"Contrary to the quick read given the framework, and then, the judgement based on that quick read... Big Ten teams would actually have flexibility/opportunity to play each other with more frequency under this framework than they have under their EXISTING scheduling policies... and, further contrary, while the football scheduling piece is a significant one, it is the ONLY piece that is re-engineered."

(01-05-2015 09:50 PM)nzmorange Wrote:  2. You are ignoring opportunity costs. Move Tennessee and a new problem arises. The only way to not play an eternal game a whack-a-mole is to let schools do what they want in a completely unregulated environment. Your slotting system constrains that freedom. ND, SU, Pitt, BC, and PSU could not all be in the same division under your system. If things blew up and conferences were designed from scratch, there is a very good chance that they would all be in the same conference. So, if you are radically changing the collegiate landscape anyway, which you are, why oppose it?

First, I freely admit that I'm lost on that first part through "...constrains that freedom." Maybe not your fault, maybe I'm just dense tonight.

Second, though, ND, SU, Pitt, BC and Penn State could be in the same division... glad you brought it up... notice that it is prescribed that the slots are per region, not per division. Thus yeah, it is entirely plausible after all.

(01-05-2015 09:50 PM)nzmorange Wrote:  [EDIT: I know you kind of addressed this, but I think that the point still stands - what's the value add of having slots? Why not either just remove conferences from the equation

Yes... it was... remember the "big but?"

Quote:But... as has been legitimately stated ad nausem by others whose priorities aren't congrent with what's set out here... these schools that are in conferences together for the most part want to be associated with each other. Thus, anything that's going to occur has to allow them to continue that association with minimal adjustment to how they're currently associating with each other...and moreover, with no ripple effects to other sports.

(01-05-2015 09:50 PM)nzmorange Wrote:  ...or align 8 team conferences as tightly as possible and let schools do what they want OOC? Why force schools together? Sure, I get that the current system forces schools together and this theoretically allows freedom to essentially jump around bowl pools, but at the end of the day you are still forcing schools together, albeit to a different degree and in a different way. But, if that's one of the problems that you are trying to fix, why perpetuate it? Why not fix it?]

If one accepts the premise above regarding the conferences, then naturally one also accepts that the nexus of power lies within those 10 bodies, and especially the five sometimes called "power" conferences.

It seems there's some confusion about what I'm "trying to fix."

Conferences themselves are not "the problem"... and again, I'm glad you set me up to bring out that point... the innovation of this plan is not actually all that imaginative on my part, but rather merely figuring out that one of the pieces of hardware in the machine that had been presumed to be a one-piece bolt is actually, upon further examination, a separate screw and nut... what I mean is that it finally was recognized that there is, indeed, a distinction between conferences' existence and how scheduling is implemented--which once untethered, helps us configure a more mathematically-reasoned post-season as well.

(01-05-2015 09:50 PM)nzmorange Wrote:  -Also, FWIW, UT can play Auburn "OOC" under the current system, even in years where they play Auburn in-conference. Syracuse almost got stuck playing Rutgers twice in one year (once "OOC") when someone bailed on both of us at the last minute (maybe when WVU left).

Okay. I'll give you the benefit of a doubt on that.

(01-05-2015 09:50 PM)nzmorange Wrote:  3. You didn't really address my point here. If you are going to use a slot system, use more than geography to determine how many slots each conference gets. Failure to do so will create political issues (i.e. splitting up NC, Texas, and/or Cali schools), lost rivalries (see whack-a-mole comment), and recruiting issues (see whack-a-mole comment).

I'm not refusing to consider it, but if say, Tennessee (SEC) or Texas (BXII) or Nebraska (B1G) or anyone else could conceivably end up in any of 3 regions in any given year, I'm then stuck on why there is some consternation about any of the concerns you raise. Recruiting? Tennessee can always tell the kid from Florida that they will have the opportunity to play in his home state. Lost rivalries? I'm not even sure how that could be operationalized in this framework... what, have a group of 8 or 16 that is to be only teams with rivalries?... rivalries, though are in twos, not in eights or sixteens. Politics? Again... how would you adapt that paradigm into a slotting system?

By the way... the lone exception to having 3 regions with at least one slot, if you hadn't noticed, is out West--the PAC 12 is confined to the West region.

Is that a problem? Not sure. Might be. If so, I leave open the door that conferences could conceivably make one-year slot trades with each other and that, conceivably, the BXII would be able/willing to facilitate that.

On the other hand, it might not be. If that's the case, the PAC 12 perhaps would perceive it as most advantageous to populate a region so thoroughly that they are almost shoe-ins to deliver a final four team every season.

(I don't pretend to have all the answers, but I do think that I've, at least, thought of most of the questions... probably not all, but most.)

(01-05-2015 09:50 PM)nzmorange Wrote:  4. The winner of the National Division of the Orange Bowl pool will play the winner of the American Division of the Orange Bowl pool in the Orange Bowl, right? That is predetermined seeding.

I see what you're getting at. Yes, it is structured that way. I'm not married to that part of the plan. I favor it, yes, but I probably could live with an alternative.

(01-05-2015 09:50 PM)nzmorange Wrote:  *****
I honestly think that the best way to "fix"college football is with an all-powerful governing body...

I press "pause" here b/c you're free to imagine that... and many on this particular board do that every week... but this particular plan is conceived under the premise that the balance of power is and will remain in the conferences.

(01-05-2015 09:50 PM)nzmorange Wrote:  ...Obviously the big schools would oppose such changes because it would create equality, but the change would maximize interest for the sport as a whole.

I think the bottom line is that conferences can be led to do what they don't want to do, as long as that thing is not for the conference system itself to be asked to implode. We wouldn't have made the advancements toward equality to the degree that we have if those guys were impervious to public outcry... and again, not that they're that noble necessarily, but that public outcry can mean either of two things--you're leaving money on the table b/c people are enthusiastic for something you aren't currently doing, or you're positioning yourself to lose public interest because, if left to its own, non-responsiveness from a business eventually... eventually... gives rise to customer apathy.

Either way... there are financial consequences to not bending an ear to public outcry.

Best way to raise the volume? Keep piling up those non-contract school wins, regular or post-season, against the contract school competition. Makes it more and more uncomfortable for the stereotype to continue to breathe that there is some rightful preference that the middle and lower class of the con5 conferences should get to possess.

It is hard to convey how much fail is in your scheme. To add to Frank's posts....

Your inherit nature appears overly egalitarian and contrary to liberty values. While some access and opportunity arguments may engender empathy with some sports fans, as sports are, or should be, meritocracies, universities and their alumni and fans are rightfully primarily motivated by their own self interests. Those interests are contrary to your goals.

Of course, you dismiss such conflicts and justify your plan by alleging a there is a moral problem of unfairness so severe that you are justified in planning to rip apart voluntary associations and force involuntary associations. Unlike recent actual realignment where a school desires to leave one conference for another, you eschew entire conferences and their traditions, and force undesired conference associations, without any consideration as to why any school in a major conference would want to embrace your plan.

In short, you are another system tyrant pushing an egalitarian utopia of gold and silver castes.

Sorry for the bluntness.

Lurker, I appreciate the intelligent response, and yes even the candor... but I think the fail is on your side of this, as-in, fail to respond to the objective evidence I present that supports the conclusion that the college football industry is incrementally responding to public outcry for a more coherent, rational, and, yes, fair framework for the 128 teams that qualify and participate as FBS.

Look, you, me, and the rest of us approach these things with our own self-interests (or that of the university to which we possess affinity), of course, many of those ultimately economic in nature...

But ultimately I believe history, in the U.S. and most of the civilized world, has shown that there is a inbred respect for equality that may move with the speed of a glacier, but more importantly, it moves with the force of one... not equality of outcomes as your post speaks to (don't think your readers so naive as to not catch that), but equality of opportunity.

As to the rest of the post, my perspective is that your perspective--in particular, the "rip apart voluntary associations and force involuntary associations" part-- is just very resistant to ascending to an actual nuts and bolts discussion, and instead, very quick to make shallow grandiose characterizations, coloring the facts in order to dissuade readers from more than passing thought about the legitimacy of the elements of the concept. Over and over now, I've provided evidence of how, in fact, the flexibility inherent in this plan improves the capacity of a conferences' schools to play more regular football games (what you broadly characterize as "association" as-if it's something more than playing regular football games) with each other. After awhile, anyone of any intelligence paying attention to the thread has no choice but to deem the reticence to deal with that evidence as defensiveness and deflection.

Just sayin.

That's as much as I want to discuss of it in this thread, which is more of an applied one, and how we might project this could all work out a decade or two from now... as opposed to discussing theory/rationale/philosophy as you and other defenders of the high-resource schools' superiority stereotype are want to do... but again, if there's another thread where this more fundamental issue is being discussed, I'd appreciate being directed to it.

(01-06-2015 10:25 AM)_sturt_ Wrote:  Lurker, I appreciate the intelligent response, and yes even the candor... but I think the fail is on your side of this, as-in, fail to respond to the objective evidence I present that supports the conclusion that the college football industry is incrementally responding to public outcry for a more coherent, rational, and, yes, fair framework for the 128 teams that qualify and participate as FBS.

Look, you, me, and the rest of us approach these things with our own self-interests (or that of the university to which we possess affinity), of course, many of those ultimately economic in nature...

But ultimately I believe history, in the U.S. and most of the civilized world, has shown that there is a inbred respect for equality that may move with the speed of a glacier, but more importantly, it moves with the force of one... not equality of outcomes as your post speaks to (don't think your readers so naive as to not catch that), but equality of opportunity.

As to the rest of the post, my perspective is that your perspective--in particular, the "rip apart voluntary associations and force involuntary associations" part-- is just very resistant to ascending to an actual nuts and bolts discussion, and instead, very quick to make shallow grandiose characterizations, coloring the facts in order to dissuade readers from more than passing thought about the legitimacy of the elements of the concept. Over and over now, I've provided evidence of how, in fact, the flexibility inherent in this plan improves the capacity of a conferences' schools to play more regular football games (what you broadly characterize as "association" as-if it's something more than playing regular football games) with each other. After awhile, anyone of any intelligence paying attention to the thread has no choice but to deem the reticence to deal with that evidence as defensiveness and deflection.

Just sayin.

That's as much as I want to discuss of it in this thread, which is more of an applied one, and how we might project this could all work out a decade or two from now... as opposed to discussing theory/rationale/philosophy as you and other defenders of the high-resource schools' superiority stereotype are want to do... but again, if there's another thread where this more fundamental issue is being discussed, I'd appreciate being directed to it.

It's hard to separate the application of this system without discussing the fundamental issues with it, though. I don't think it's grandiose at all to state that your proposal rips apart voluntary associations. That's *exactly* what it's doing. If conference expansion is for FBS football and TV money is for FBS football and the playoff push is for FBS football, you can't turn around and say that we'll throw FBS football scheduling completely up in the air and controlled by a promotion/relegation system and then attempt to argue that you're not destroying conferences because it's "just for FBS football".

To use the example of Tennessee that people have discussed, you seem to be saying there's some type of benefit to being able to schedule more SEC West schools that they aren't playing as often anymore due to conference expansion... but then completely neglect that you're putting at risk their ability to play *any* SEC conference games at all (much less the schools that they care the most about about such as Florida and cross-division rival Alabama). Tennessee signed off on SEC expansion and playing the SEC West teams (outside of Alabama) less. That was completely voluntary. They will NOT sign off on any proposal where they will suddenly lose ALL 8 SEC conference games because they had a down year on the field. Fundamentally, I absolutely believe that it's awful to put them in that position in the first place. Tennessee should always have the freedom to associate with the rest of the SEC.

Do I see G5 fans complaining about the system? Sure, but the reality is that the G5 schools are in the position of financial takers as opposed to financial providers. If the G5 conferences had any legit financial weight to implement change, then they wouldn't be G5 conferences in the first place. At the same time (and I've already said this), the public complaints about the playoff are NOT about "equality". What they care about is ensuring that the heavyweights (the 5 power conferences) are represented and generally think the playoff field should be larger (whether it's 8 or more). If Boise State is awesome and undefeated in a particular season, then the public will want them in the playoff, but don't mistake that for believing that the public believes any MWC champ no matter what their record should be in the playoff.

In essence, the public is completely reversed from your position. They look at the playoff as completely OUTCOME based - when 5 power conference teams have 1 loss but only 3 of them can make it into the playoff (as was the case this season), then *that's* what they consider to be unfair. They want the playoff field large enough to accommodate that type of perceived inequity because they don't like the OUTCOME. The public actually doesn't care much about the equality of opportunity at all when it comes to college football - you heard nary a peep about people outside of the G5 wanting Marshall or even a Boise State team that went on to win the Fiesta Bowl against an excellent Arizona team deserving a shot at the playoff despite their records.

Plus, even if I were to grant you that "equality of opportunity" is the driving factor, that can be addressed by the playoff system itself with much less hassle. Even an 8-team playoff with one spot reserved for the best G5 champ changes the opportunities for lower resource schools greatly without completely destroying the conferences as we know them. More importantly, I think that 8-team playoff system actually has a legit chance of being implemented within our lifetimes because, as Lurker noted, there are actually self-interests for the P5 to make that happen while still simultaneously opening up more access for the G5. Pursuing one's economic self-interest certainly isn't automatically at odds with greater societal good. The G5 can be better off even when the P5 pursue their self-interests. Heck, you can even propose a 16-team playoff for football with auto-bids for every conference, which would clearly be "equality of opportunity" without messing with any conference (and essentially mirror the NCAA Tournament format). I don't think that would ever realistically occur for many different reasons, but there's at least some sort of hypothetical basis for that type of proposal.

However, we can't sit here and pretend that the P5 are ever even going to consider giving up their voluntary associations - that's a 100% non-starter and why, even with as much thought as you've put into these posts, it's so difficult to even take in the details when you're looking past that very fundamental issue. You're basically telling the P5 that their most important issue of self-governance (and the whole reason why they just threatened to leave the NCAA if they didn't pass the new autonomy rules) is not only thrown out the window, but also they can't even control which schools they associate themselves with at a basic level. To put it mildly, that isn't realistic at all. The P5 will destroy the NCAA itself if they mess with conference compositions (or, by your terminology, FBS scheduling) and, by extension, the NCAA Tournament, before they would let that happen. That would leave the G5 schools without any "equality of opportunity" at all even for basketball and other sports, much less FBS football. This is all G5 bark when only the P5 can bite (and watch out if they *do* bite).

(01-06-2015 12:29 PM)Frank the Tank Wrote:  It's hard to separate the application of this system without discussing the fundamental issues with it, though. I don't think it's grandiose at all to state that your proposal rips apart voluntary associations. That's *exactly* what it's doing.

You seem and have always seemed like a rational person. And I sincerely don't want to come across as condescending. I do respect your intelligence.

This is just one of those times when the other person's reaction leads me to the conclusion--by virtue of the way the way the original content has been reflected/characterized back to me--that the other person has such an adverse objection to some particular element, his resentment shields him from anything beyond a surface level understanding of the plan.

If I may, that particular element appears to be the promotion/relegation element...

(01-06-2015 12:29 PM)Frank the Tank Wrote:  ...To use the example of Tennessee that people have discussed, you seem to be saying there's some type of benefit to being able to schedule more SEC West schools that they aren't playing as often anymore due to conference expansion... but then completely neglect that you're putting at risk their ability to play *any* SEC conference games at all (much less the schools that they care the most about about such as Florida and cross-division rival Alabama). Tennessee signed off on SEC expansion and playing the SEC West teams (outside of Alabama) less. That was completely voluntary. They will NOT sign off on any proposal where they will suddenly lose ALL 8 SEC conference games because they had a down year on the field. Fundamentally, I absolutely believe that it's awful to put them in that position in the first place. Tennessee should always have the freedom to associate with the rest of the SEC.

On that front, I was waiting to hear how many times in the last 50 years any of the upper crust programs you'd cited in your previous post had been among the least 8 teams in all of the contract conference teams (?).

So... should we be surprised that alums of contact conference schools prefer to back up and deliberate the ethics and rationale behind prom/reg instead of engaging the applied discussion of how it would be implemented?

If you'll pardon the cynicism, I don't think so.

But that's my focus... ie, here in this thread anyhow.

To that same end, I think an earlier non-contract school fan/poster (I forget who, and am too lazy to look it up) had a point when he suggested that the implementation is exceptionally restrictive--asking if I realized just how rare it had been for a non-contract school to repeat as champions of their conference, and thus how rare it would probably be for them to repeat in this context... and moreover, that not only does a program have to achieve that, but also the defeat of one of the #8-finish contract programs.

But I think it should be. Exceptionally restrictive, that is.

End game, prom/rel in this context is going to add some drama to the season, but if history isn't lying to us, it will be fairly rare; and when it does occur, it will be merited... merit being the root word of merit-ocracy, of course... didn't I read that meritocracy word somewhere here lately?

It is interesting to me that some people will come to this topic thinking they're arguing for free market principles, when in fact, it is so absurdly clear that to the contrary they're arguing for protectionism... don't force us into a forum where we actually have to compete... we so much prefer to maintain the status quo and protect our access to the national championship just by virtue of being members of the country club.

Then again, I suppose this is why it is so important to try to swell up the hyperbole and to use violent terms like "tear" and "rip" and to speak of the whole entire complete universal essence of being a conference as one-and-the-same with how regular season football schedules are constructed. Again. Significant, yes. But it doesn't eclipse the fact that basketball still exists, that other sports still exist, that any scholarly relationships still exist, or any other function of the conference still exists.

Besides that, the reality is, as painful as it temporarily might be, this theoretical relegated program that is given so much concern here, in terms of its long-term health, probably needs to have not just the wake-up call, but the benefit of playing a lower-resource group of schools, allowing it to catapult back up to stronger health than it could attain in its previous condition.

It happens in life among individuals... bottoming out, and going on to flourish... it happens in business, too. Many well-regarded economists believe that the best thing that could have happened to the U.S. auto industry in 2008/09 would have been bankruptcy--that GM and Chrysler would have recovered much more rapidly in that context where they had some legal protections and without government impositions.

(01-06-2015 12:29 PM)Frank the Tank Wrote:  If conference expansion is for FBS football and TV money is for FBS football and the playoff push is for FBS football, you can't turn around and say that we'll throw FBS football scheduling completely up in the air and controlled by a promotion/relegation system and then attempt to argue that you're not destroying conferences because it's "just for FBS football".

Addressed this most recently with orange, so please pardon the copy and paste... here's where I think we're missing each other...

Quote:Conferences themselves are not "the problem"... and again, I'm glad you set me up to bring out that point... the innovation of this plan is not actually all that imaginative on my part, but rather merely figuring out that one of the pieces of hardware in the machine that had been presumed to be a one-piece bolt is actually, upon further examination, a separate screw and nut... what I mean is that it finally was recognized that there is, indeed, a distinction between conferences' existence and how scheduling is implemented--which once untethered, helps us configure a more mathematically-reasoned post-season as well.

It's my take that there are constructs in your mind that obfuscate your capacity to see that while football-schedule-building/implementation is a significant piece, there is much more to these "associations" than that (... which ironically enough, I believe you made that very case once or twice before, as you spoke to the relations between schools even beyond athletics... so, yes, I agree, and would only ask you to agree with yourself on that very point).

Let's deal with the football scheduling element and break it down into its real parts...

Traditionally, schedule-building has been straightforward... no... more than that, formulaic... you have x-number is a division, x-number in an opposite division, and it's automatically determined.

Obviously, this plan introduces a whole different paradigm... you have whatever number of total conference members you have, and every January, the conference office sorts those members into the slots allotted in each given region based on your conference's decision of where its priorities lie (...and as importantly as allowing some schools to play each other that want to play each other--albeit within some acknowledged limitations--it is a framework that allows a conference to not force schools to play each other that do not necessarily desire to play each other).

That's it. That's the nuts-and-bolts change.

(01-06-2015 12:29 PM)Frank the Tank Wrote:  Do I see G5 fans complaining about the system? Sure, but the reality is that the G5 schools are in the position of financial takers as opposed to financial providers. If the G5 conferences had any legit financial weight to implement change, then they wouldn't be G5 conferences in the first place. At the same time (and I've already said this), the public complaints about the playoff are NOT about "equality". What they care about is ensuring that the heavyweights (the 5 power conferences) are represented and generally think the playoff field should be larger (whether it's 8 or more). If Boise State is awesome and undefeated in a particular season, then the public will want them in the playoff, but don't mistake that for believing that the public believes any MWC champ no matter what their record should be in the playoff.

I disagree in some ways and agree in others, but on the whole, I'm not especially interested in how any one con5 fan would characterize non-con5 fans' fundamental complaints... or, at least not here in this thread. That's a subjective and philosophical discussion of its own.

My desire from the outset has been to outline what a plan that is guided by

(1) the principle of equality of opportunity (... and embedded within that, perhaps it goes without saying that if an entity qualifies as to be part of a certain class eligible to aspire to a certain goal, fairness demands what fairness demands);

(2) preference for objective, on-the-field results and subjugating subjective human decision/voting;

(3) respect for maintaining the conferences' authority and the traditional football calendar;

(4) recognition that the national championship race is a higher priority in this new era than any one conference championship; and

(5) plain and simple math (... ie, a desire to take advantage of the exceptionally-fortunate circumstance where the format for the national championship is concerned that the FBS n currently equals 128... which divided by 2 equals 64, which divided by 2 equals 32, which divided by 2 equals 16, which divided by 2 equals 8, which divided by 2 equals 4, which divided by 2 equals 2, which makes for an indisputably-rational national championship game...)

would look like.

If one accepts those premises, then s/he has standing to deliberate the mechanics of this plan. If s/he doesn't, then we're not sufficiently on the same page that it really merits pursuing the "mechanics" discussion... the "constitution," if you will.

(01-06-2015 12:29 PM)Frank the Tank Wrote:  In essence, the public is completely reversed from your position. They look at the playoff as completely OUTCOME based - when 5 power conference teams have 1 loss but only 3 of them can make it into the playoff (as was the case this season), then *that's* what they consider to be unfair. They want the playoff field large enough to accommodate that type of perceived inequity because they don't like the OUTCOME. The public actually doesn't care much about the equality of opportunity at all when it comes to college football - you heard nary a peep about people outside of the G5 wanting Marshall or even a Boise State team that went on to win the Fiesta Bowl against an excellent Arizona team deserving a shot at the playoff despite their records.

I said what I said above, but I will add here that I'm not persuaded we are using the same definition... equality of opportunity, at least by the definition I've always seen applied, says that every person/entity has equivalent opportunity to achieve the top... whereas some advocate for equality of outcome, which is to say that the goal is to see every lower class person/entity actually achieve the top.

So, the equality thing... whether opportunity or outcome... isn't even part of that debate... there is nothing systemic in the CFP that prevented TCU from achieving what they wanted to achieve, but rather, the message is that their own conference's format (ie, the exclusion of a mandated final game ostensibly against a high-quality, likely-ranked opponent) prevented them from maintaining their pre-championship-game-weekend standing.

I suppose, on the other hand, you might be speaking of the outcry over the BXII not being represented... ie, an equality of outcome thing... but then again, it's not as-if everyone didn't already know that at least one of the con5 conferences was going to be left out of a 4 team playoff, so that outcry lacks some integrity... the lack of equality of outcome was know-able from the day they announced it would be a 4-team playoff.

One more thing... I think this illustrates a lot of the incoherence of the existing system...

You heard "nary a peep" for good reason... a team like Boise is one that doesn't get the standing to play a schedule that would merit a "peep."

Turn the tables, and ask yourself, was Arizona, on the other hand, ever considered during the season to be a playoff contender... ie, did we hear that "peep?" Yes they were and yes they did, right?

So, by association then, knowing that Boise defeated the #10 team, the question is pretty salient--should we have, at least, heard a "peep," and if not, did the system artificially buoy some teams to be "peeped," and artificially suppress some teams from being "peeped?"

(01-06-2015 12:29 PM)Frank the Tank Wrote:  Plus, even if I were to grant you that "equality of opportunity" is the driving factor, that can be addressed by the playoff system itself with much less hassle. Even an 8-team playoff with one spot reserved for the best G5 champ changes the opportunities for lower resource schools greatly without completely destroying the conferences as we know them. More importantly, I think that 8-team playoff system actually has a legit chance of being implemented within our lifetimes because, as Lurker noted, there are actually self-interests for the P5 to make that happen while still simultaneously opening up more access for the G5. Pursuing one's economic self-interest certainly isn't automatically at odds with greater societal good. The G5 can be better off even when the P5 pursue their self-interests. Heck, you can even propose a 16-team playoff for football with auto-bids for every conference, which would clearly be "equality of opportunity" without messing with any conference (and essentially mirror the NCAA Tournament format). I don't think that would ever realistically occur for many different reasons, but there's at least some sort of hypothetical basis for that type of proposal.

How do you get to a system that is completely decided on the field with an 8-team playoff.

That--decided on the field--is one of the fundamental premises... one of the starting points for this particular discussion.

And that is, as I see it, your major challenge among all of the premises' challenges, if you choose to accept it.

(01-06-2015 12:29 PM)Frank the Tank Wrote:  However, we can't sit here and pretend that the P5 are ever even going to consider giving up their voluntary associations - that's a 100% non-starter and why, even with as much thought as you've put into these posts, it's so difficult to even take in the details when you're looking past that very fundamental issue. You're basically telling the P5 that their most important issue of self-governance (and the whole reason why they just threatened to leave the NCAA if they didn't pass the new autonomy rules) is not only thrown out the window, but also they can't even control which schools they associate themselves with at a basic level. To put it mildly, that isn't realistic at all. The P5 will destroy the NCAA itself if they mess with conference compositions (or, by your terminology, FBS scheduling) and, by extension, the NCAA Tournament, before they would let that happen. That would leave the G5 schools without any "equality of opportunity" at all even for basketball and other sports, much less FBS football. This is all G5 bark when only the P5 can bite (and watch out if they *do* bite).

We agree on what is a non-starter for the next ten years.

We disagree that environments can change substantially over a decade or two... they have and they will. Sure there are things that won't change, but predicting what will be static with any accuracy is just oblivious arrogance. All we can really discuss with any intelligence are trends because time travel hasn't developed well enough just yet to inform us on exactly what new factors may have arisen to re-shape the environment in that next generation.

There is no question that the "power" in "power 5" most authentically refers to political power, not competitive power. On that... their political weight... we also agree.

I do think you go over the top when you fail to recognize, though, that taking away the non-contract schools would be tantamount to suggesting you could wipe out all of those U.S. workers whose incomes are at and below the median, and the top-half earners would continue to be that.

There's a symbiotic relationship between the two, and just as it's easy to underestimate how drastically our economy would be affected with the absence of all of those below-median workers, you seem vulnerable to underestimating the affect of dismissing the non-contract schools from FBS.

It's again, more of a philosophical conversation that we could get into in more depth at some point, but for now I'll just leave it that there would be some serious downside to that... downsides that, once understood, explain why the big split has been postulated for all these many years by many fans, yet without any actual tangible merit. Administrators understand those downsides.

Good talking with you, as always.

Now, back to work. :)