Hello There, Guest! (LoginRegister)

Post Reply 
A Reasonable Suggestion for a Compromise Position for Realignment
Author Message
JRsec Offline
Super Moderator
*

Posts: 37,891
Joined: Mar 2012
Reputation: 7737
I Root For: SEC
Location:
Post: #1
A Reasonable Suggestion for a Compromise Position for Realignment
I think many on this board have noted that there are many problems inherent in the 4 x 16 model for the so called super conferences. The same is true for the present Power 5 who are comprised of 65 teams.

I think we can all agree that it is likely that there will either be a new upper tier or perhaps even a breakaway of those teams who consider themselves to be the largest investors into their football programs. This too has many inherent dangers.

First the problems with 64 or 65:
1. The honeys of the networks are going to wind up with more losses because of the limited field of teams with lesser talent or resources. For some reason Americans love to do two things apart from their alma maters:
a. Root for underdogs against their teams rivals or those who are undefeated.
b. Root for the undefeated that are playing against the teams they hate.

Lose that dynamic by having parity and you lose ancillary viewers. That won't be good for the networks.

2. More losses mean less booster money for the media Darlings. Boosters like wins, hate loses, and disappear when their team sinks to mediocrity. (Some boosters excepted of course.) That's not good for the schools.

3. There is going to be less bowl eligible teams if this passes not more. Less teams playing in bowls is a knock on conference revenue. The playoffs are a plus. But they won't be as much of one if the bowl revenue drops in the process. With 4 top draws committed to the playoffs and more big name schools falling short of the required number of wins the result will be fewer bowl eligible teams. That's not good for networks or conferences.

4. If anything dire happens to one of the favored 64 or 65 and the upper tier has been in place for a few years how will any of the teams in the lower tier (who by now are making much less than the upper tier teams) be able to afford a move up. With today's economy that could take years to accomplish. In the meantime the upper tier scheduling suffers and the team called up struggles to achieve facilities upgrades, provide the appropriate number of non-football sports, etc.

That brings us to the reason that between 65 and 72 schools is proposed now for an upper tier. Since the networks have driven realignment the number being squeezed out here is the one that represents the number of teams that can add enough revenue to a conference to merit inclusion. That sum represents then the boundary between consideration for the upper tier and being left out.

That brings me finally to my suggestion. Whether we have 4 or 5 power conferences we plan on having 80 teams that will play with conference affiliation. If Notre Dame and Texas get a provision to play as independents that's fine. We are talking about teams which will play as full conference members would play, but (big but here) they would not be full conference members.

What if each conference could have provisional members. Provisional membership would mean the following:
1. Provisional membership lasts for 10 and up to 20 years.

2. Facilities, #of stipends in addition to scholarships, academics, and levels of athletic endowment would all have to be met before full conference membership is granted. Goals would be set and evaluated at 10 years. If a school was deemed to making sufficient progress to attain those goals with the next 10 years their provisional membership is renewed until full acceptance. If they are deemed to not be able to reach their goals they can be replaced at 10 years.

3. They start at half of the present full conference membership pay and remain at that level for the first 10 years. If granted an additional 10 years to meet their goals they move up to 3/4's full conference pay until accepted. If any team meets their goals early then regardless of their time spent they are eligible for full membership.

One of the problems now is that many teams who will only make 2 million a year for football in their present conference could benefit immensely by being able to become a provisional member of the ACC, SEC, Big 10, Big 12 or PAC at half pay which might easily be 6 times what they could make by staying in their present conference. It means that teams that dream of making the upper tier could realistically play their way in while enhancing facilities and academics and providing the requisite minor sports programs. They would not cost the networks that much more, and their markets might be able to cover half price inclusion in the larger conferences.

In any event it would be a realistic option for playing your way up and would offer the upward mobility required to prevent law suits.

My proposal therefore is that if we find ourselves with 5 conferences that the limit of teams (full member and provisional) be set at 16 per conference. If we find ourselves at 4 conferences then the limit would be 20. With such an arrangement teams like E.C.U., South Florida, Central Florida, Colorado State and many more could grow their way in and do so at a price higher than what they make now but low enough to permit the bigger conferences to find value in their inclusion.

If the networks take a realistic look at what is going to happen to their favorites in terms of wins and losses and at the more sparse bowl eligibility projections I don't think that they and the conferences would suffer from the inclusion of 16 more teams for the cost of 8. It permits the the new upper tier to avoid law suits, ensures numbers of bowl eligible teams, and insures more wins for some of their darlings (wins that turn into ratings shares) and makes everyone more money.

Your thoughts are welcomed.
(This post was last modified: 05-16-2013 03:26 PM by JRsec.)
05-16-2013 03:17 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Advertisement


bigblueblindness Offline
1st String
*

Posts: 2,073
Joined: Apr 2013
Reputation: 53
I Root For: UK, Lipscomb
Location: Kentucky
Post: #2
RE: A Reasonable Suggestion for a Compromise Position for Realignment
Great post! ECU, looks like you have your solution. I may come back and comment later on a few particulars of your layout.

By the way, JR, your pick on the SEC board.
05-16-2013 03:34 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
CommuterBob Offline
Head Tailgater
*

Posts: 5,840
Joined: Feb 2012
Reputation: 173
I Root For: UCF, Ohio State
Location:
Post: #3
RE: A Reasonable Suggestion for a Compromise Position for Realignment
Provisional membership as a concept has been around for a while. The XII even has a 5-year escalation of revenue plan for their new members. But conferences have been loathe to allow this, especially the power conferences. ECU once offered to take no revenue as a football-only member of the Big East for a specific duration and the BE said no. The P5 are set to earn roughly 90% of the revenue for football and retain their hold on about 80% of the revenue for basketball. Adding teams for them doesn't do enough to significantly eat into the remaining percentages while allowing each of the current members to retain their (projected) level of revenue. Ultimately any breakaway would have to be about increasing revenue and control. Right now, the P5 realistically have both.

And as far as the stipends go, the opposition to them is not exempt from the P5. There were P5 schools that submitted override requests to both the stipends and the recruiting deregulation proposals. That's one of the issues I see with the breakaway - the P5 can't even get it together to agree to pass rules that almost exclusively benefit them - even when they wield most of the power within the NCAA.

The P5 have most of the money and power, and have successfully placed the NCAA in the position of scapegoat. Why change that?
05-16-2013 03:50 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
JRsec Offline
Super Moderator
*

Posts: 37,891
Joined: Mar 2012
Reputation: 7737
I Root For: SEC
Location:
Post: #4
RE: A Reasonable Suggestion for a Compromise Position for Realignment
(05-16-2013 03:50 PM)CommuterBob Wrote:  Provisional membership as a concept has been around for a while. The XII even has a 5-year escalation of revenue plan for their new members. But conferences have been loathe to allow this, especially the power conferences. ECU once offered to take no revenue as a football-only member of the Big East for a specific duration and the BE said no. The P5 are set to earn roughly 90% of the revenue for football and retain their hold on about 80% of the revenue for basketball. Adding teams for them doesn't do enough to significantly eat into the remaining percentages while allowing each of the current members to retain their (projected) level of revenue. Ultimately any breakaway would have to be about increasing revenue and control. Right now, the P5 realistically have both.

And as far as the stipends go, the opposition to them is not exempt from the P5. There were P5 schools that submitted override requests to both the stipends and the recruiting deregulation proposals. That's one of the issues I see with the breakaway - the P5 can't even get it together to agree to pass rules that almost exclusively benefit them - even when they wield most of the power within the NCAA.

The P5 have most of the money and power, and have successfully placed the NCAA in the position of scapegoat. Why change that?

As always a cogent and precise argument. I think they will find the affects of increased parity to be deleterious. But much worse will be if we do wind up with just the P5 we are going to have some real difficulties in scheduling. And, I think that eventually there will have to be a pathway to upward mobility to avoid legal entanglements.

I already knew about the provisional membership agreements in the past. Standardizing them could create better opportunities if conferences begin to see it as a legitimate means of access that is not perceived of in detrimental terms to conference academic standing. For example, a team like Oklahoma, should the Big 12 find movement again, could join the Big 10 on provisional terms with the goal being that of AAU membership. The standardized time frame for them to accomplish this becomes much more realistic. The Big 10 could opt to pay them fully if they desired, but exclude them from CIC participation until they had attained the membership. Anyway, it's just a thought.
05-16-2013 04:02 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
NIU007 Offline
Legend
*

Posts: 34,240
Joined: Sep 2004
Reputation: 315
I Root For: NIU, MAC
Location: Naperville, IL
Post: #5
RE: A Reasonable Suggestion for a Compromise Position for Realignment
I just wonder if any of it is practical. What do the networks gain? They would lose some viewers from those excluded. So they'd have to get something to make up for that, to begin with.

A real playoff would help. But it would be so hypocritical to put, say, an 8-team playoff in with only 64 teams (or so), when they now claim that 8 is too many for a field of 125 and that it makes the regular season less important. Also, I wonder how many middling and bottom P5 teams would have any success financially when they can't get more than 6 home games. I'm sure the idea sounds good to them.
05-16-2013 04:07 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Advertisement


Frank the Tank Offline
Hall of Famer
*

Posts: 18,722
Joined: Jun 2008
Reputation: 1775
I Root For: Illinois/DePaul
Location: Chicago
Post: #6
RE: A Reasonable Suggestion for a Compromise Position for Realignment
Interesting, although I question whether a larger number of losses are really a concern. With conferences having more divisions, the power schools may actually have easier schedules year-to-year compared to the old days of the round-robin. The SEC has had quite a run of undefeated or 1-loss teams over the past several years despite the claims of how tough their conference competition has been, so I don't necessarily think conference realignment is going to translate into a greater number of losses. Even if I'm wrong, though, I don't think losses in and of themselves matter as much as the impact of such losses relative to everyone else. If *everyone* in the power leagues have more losses, then I think fans will adjust their expectations. If your favorite NFL team makes it to the Super Bowl, you don't care if you had 6 or 7 losses in the regular season. Likewise, if the new "norm" for making it to the College Football Playoff regularly includes teams with 2 or 3 or more losses, then those expectations will be adjusted, as well.

That relates to one of the underpinnings of your proposal: is parity really a bad thing for college football? It certainly isn't the case in the NFL. Plus, to the extent that parity is supposedly a bad thing, college football (and basketball, for that matter) has a hedge against that since the top programs disproportionately get the top recruits every year (whereas there's a reverse order draft in the pros to prop up the talent on the worst teams). I just don't see conference realignment necessarily changing that. We've had around the same number of schools at the BCS level since 1998 (around 65 or so) and that parity hasn't ever come up (if anything, it's as concentrated at the top as ever), so I don't see how it would be different now.

At the end of the day, what purpose would those provisional members serve for the power conferences outside of the argument that they would potentially add some wins? What does having UCF or USF as provisional members do for the SEC or ACC (who already have strong Florida presences)? We could say the same for any MAC schools with respect to the Big Ten. The only place where any provisional members actually seem to add value would be if the Pac-12 and Big 12 split up some MWC schools as there are markets in that region that aren't already covered by other power conferences and would actually add new markets to those respective leagues. To me, the financial payoff for being in a power conference is much more about exclusivity as opposed to wins in and of themselves, so maintaining exclusivity (which inherently goes against the concept of provisional members) is priority #1 with that group.

If you wanted something exotic to help out the Gang of Five (and I fully admit that this is a fantasy that would never happen), then there ought to be a promotion/relegation system within that group itself. (I've seen a lot of promotion/relegation suggestions that include the power conferences, which would be even more of a non-starter.) Essentially, there should be a Gang of Five Premier League of 12, 14 or even 16 schools. The champ of the Premier League is who would get the access bowl bid in the College Football Playoff system. The rest of the Gang of Five would be split up into 4 other "leagues" based on geography. The 4 winners of those leagues would move up to the Premier League each year, while the bottom 4 of the Premier League get sent down (or maybe the bottom 2 of each Premier League division, or something to that effect... you get the idea). Like I've said, that would be impossible to implement in practicality, but it would make those games a helluva lot more fun to watch (imagine "Relegation Saturday" for college football) while the Premier League (in theory) ought to at least be somewhat competitive with the power conferences. If necessary, maybe records for the purposes of relegation or promotion can be added up over the course of 2 or 4 years to remove the prospect of extreme outlier seasons. (Like I've said, I don't think any league is going for that, but it's an idea to kick around.)
(This post was last modified: 05-16-2013 04:19 PM by Frank the Tank.)
05-16-2013 04:14 PM
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
JRsec Offline
Super Moderator
*

Posts: 37,891
Joined: Mar 2012
Reputation: 7737
I Root For: SEC
Location:
Post: #7
RE: A Reasonable Suggestion for a Compromise Position for Realignment
(05-16-2013 04:07 PM)NIU007 Wrote:  I just wonder if any of it is practical. What do the networks gain? They would lose some viewers from those excluded. So they'd have to get something to make up for that, to begin with.

A real playoff would help. But it would be so hypocritical to put, say, an 8-team playoff in with only 64 teams (or so), when they now claim that 8 is too many for a field of 125 and that it makes the regular season less important. Also, I wonder how many middling and bottom P5 teams would have any success financially when they can't get more than 6 home games. I'm sure the idea sounds good to them.

I would hope that the networks would gain a higher percentage of undefeated teams which always boost interest and ratings. I would also hope that they would gain back some of those fans that you correctly say they are going to lose. And I hope it would give some upward mobility to those who have for years been striving to attain what those in the so called upper tier already have.

How realistic is it? I don't know. But if you could pick up new market areas, grow your conference by growing the resume of schools selected rather than by poaching someone else's upper tier conference then maybe some stability and access would be important to have as well. People never feel as excluded if the entrance requirements are understandable and attainable. Right now it is like we are the in crowd and you are not and that is just wrong, and a whole lot un-American in my opinion. I grow more afraid every day that we are losing the "equal right to pursue happiness" heritage that we were founded upon and replacing it with the "might makes right" corporate mentality.

While those at the upper tier have a vested interest to protecting their revenue streams, accessibility has to be maintained. There is just too much of who we are at stake if it is not. And that issue has nothing to do with football.
05-16-2013 04:19 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
He1nousOne Offline
The One you Love to Hate.
*

Posts: 13,285
Joined: Oct 2011
Reputation: 215
I Root For: Iowa/ASU
Location: Arizona
Post: #8
RE: A Reasonable Suggestion for a Compromise Position for Realignment
Thinking outside of the box with that idea Frank. It would be like the Champions League in Europe for Soccer. The only problem though is that those Clubs in Europe get to play in their main league AND the Champions League.

So what if we modified your idea in some way so that the chosen few for the College Football version of the Champions League had some of their conference games replaced by Champions League games?

That might have an interesting unintended consequence for the rest of a Conference in that they would have 1 or 2 freed up slots in order to schedule home games.
05-16-2013 04:26 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
BewareThePhog Offline
1st String
*

Posts: 1,881
Joined: Sep 2011
Reputation: 137
I Root For: KU
Location:
Post: #9
RE: A Reasonable Suggestion for a Compromise Position for Realignment
I'm somewhat on board with JRSec on this one, at least in terms of how exclusivity can erode value. While the Alabamas of the world may still thrive in a more exclusive world, I can see damage happening to mid-tier schools if losses pile up. Take a school like Georgia - if their records start eroding from the 8-10 range to regularly being more in the 7-9 range, that can cause some loss of fan support and brand equity even in a world of reduced expectations.

Not only has the NFL has operated for decades under a system that encourages parity, that's also been part of the NFL story from the time it really emerged on the national scene. Even though the early Super Bowl years saw a rotation of a select few dynasties, the draft structure was already in place to make it feasible for "have-nots" to advance. That's not the case in college sports.

I'm not sure I'm quite there on the affiliate membership notion. I could perhaps see something more along the lines of a formalized alliance between the power conferences and those in the next tier, where scheduling arrangements are made to continue to diversify the schedules of the top 5 and to provide some visibility and financial support to the next tier, but with limits on revenue sharing and access to the championship playoff. I can't quite visualize it at the moment, and that's certainly not much different than what we have today in many ways, but I could see formalizing it in some fashion. While there's still a limiting factor on upward mobility in that model, there's probably a somewhat limited number of next-tier schools that have realistic aspirations for moving up, and the potential for that could remain if they "earn it", while making a formal agreement could forestall political issues that could otherwise arise if the top conferences simply try to break away on their own accord.
(This post was last modified: 05-16-2013 04:28 PM by BewareThePhog.)
05-16-2013 04:27 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Advertisement


NIU007 Offline
Legend
*

Posts: 34,240
Joined: Sep 2004
Reputation: 315
I Root For: NIU, MAC
Location: Naperville, IL
Post: #10
RE: A Reasonable Suggestion for a Compromise Position for Realignment
It's almost impossible right now for a "have-not" to become a "have" as there is too much inertia and too many obstacles. But at least now everyone in FBS has a shot, where they wouldn't under a separation, without some kind of upward mobility process - but I can't see how that would work.

As another said, there are teams that won't be affected by losing another couple games. But those that are .500 teams that start becoming perennial losers will lose both attendance and ratings. And money too, in that they'll have to pay more to bring a P5 school in than a Gof5 team would have cost. Unless they get that back in increased attendance, which may or may not happen.
05-16-2013 04:40 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Wedge Offline
Moderator
*

Posts: 19,862
Joined: May 2010
Reputation: 964
I Root For: California
Location: IV, V, VI, IX
Post: #11
RE: A Reasonable Suggestion for a Compromise Position for Realignment
(05-16-2013 04:14 PM)Frank the Tank Wrote:  The only place where any provisional members actually seem to add value would be if the Pac-12 and Big 12 split up some MWC schools as there are markets in that region that aren't already covered by other power conferences and would actually add new markets to those respective leagues.

Uncovered markets don't mean a thing. Uncovered markets that are very large in size, that would be worth a look. But adding smaller markets to either league inevitably reduces the per-school payout.

Look at the most recent expansion examples. Find a team that can deliver as many new-to-the-league TV viewers as, say, TAMU or Missouri, or if you can't come close to those, try finding one that delivers as many as Maryland or Rutgers. You'll find that all of the programs that can deliver that many viewers have already been snapped up, except BYU (who might be at the Maryland-Rutgers level).
05-16-2013 04:50 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Frank the Tank Offline
Hall of Famer
*

Posts: 18,722
Joined: Jun 2008
Reputation: 1775
I Root For: Illinois/DePaul
Location: Chicago
Post: #12
RE: A Reasonable Suggestion for a Compromise Position for Realignment
Wedge - I hear you there. The only reason why I pointed out the Pac-12 and Big 12 is that their provisional options (if they were forced to take them) would at least have some potential schools that aren't redundant market-wise. Certainly, the Pac-12 wouldn't expand right now with any of the MWC schools - we're hypothetically looking at a system where they would *have* to add provisional schools.
05-16-2013 05:15 PM
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Frank the Tank Offline
Hall of Famer
*

Posts: 18,722
Joined: Jun 2008
Reputation: 1775
I Root For: Illinois/DePaul
Location: Chicago
Post: #13
RE: A Reasonable Suggestion for a Compromise Position for Realignment
He1nousOne - There's actually a "simple" way to have a Champions League (albeit simple on paper and likely impossible to implement in practice): the champs of each of the Gang of Five leagues would use their 4 non-conference games to play each other. You could do NFL-style scheduling down the line with all of the #2 teams from each league playing each other, all of the #3s, etc. (with some adjustments to account for the fact that leagues are different sizes). Of course, that's not necessarily better for a school like Boise State that can actually play home-and-home series with power teams in the non-conference slate. Still, it's something to think about. More limited scheduling alliances (taking the same concept as above but only apply it to a MWC/AAC alliance) would be more likely.
(This post was last modified: 05-16-2013 05:26 PM by Frank the Tank.)
05-16-2013 05:23 PM
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Advertisement


He1nousOne Offline
The One you Love to Hate.
*

Posts: 13,285
Joined: Oct 2011
Reputation: 215
I Root For: Iowa/ASU
Location: Arizona
Post: #14
RE: A Reasonable Suggestion for a Compromise Position for Realignment
(05-16-2013 05:23 PM)Frank the Tank Wrote:  He1nousOne - There's actually a "simple" way to have a Champions League (albeit simple on paper and likely impossible to implement in practice): the champs of each of the Gang of Five leagues would use their 4 non-conference games to play each other. You could do NFL-style scheduling down the line with all of the #2 teams from each league playing each other, all of the #3s, etc. (with some adjustments to account for the fact that leagues are different sizes). Of course, that's not necessarily better for a school like Boise State that can actually play home-and-home series with power teams in the non-conference slate. Still, it's something to think about. More limited scheduling alliances (taking the same concept as above but only apply it to a MWC/AAC alliance) would be more likely.

The fun thing about the Champions League in Europe though is that they don't just take the top team.

They could do the down the line scheduling as you say but to me that seems too rigid. The whole idea, as you say, is way out there and not likely to happen but in the sense of hypothesizing I think I would rather see atleast the top three of each conference giving up perhaps two games for the "League". That would be one home game and one away game. The top ranked team in each conference would play a rank 2 from one conference and a rank 3 from another conference. Rank 2's against a rank 1 and a rank 3 and Rank 3's against a 2 and a 1. If any of this would ever be possible, it wouldn't be possible by pitting the top ranked teams in each conference against each other.

First off the Networks would hate it because it would absolutely crap all over the brand new National Tournament. They will want to give the top ranked teams a better chance at winning while still having big time match ups. It is all about hedging the odds. People here may not like the thought of that but it happens, quite regularly, in life.
05-16-2013 07:12 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Tulsafanzz Offline
1st String
*

Posts: 1,609
Joined: Nov 2007
Reputation: 57
I Root For: Tulsa
Location:
Post: #15
RE: A Reasonable Suggestion for a Compromise Position for Realignment
The Power 5 conference schools already have things set up perfectly for them. They have a huge amount of cash coming in. They have a huge $ advantage over the Gang of 5 schools. They have access to all the big bowls & the easiest access to play in a championship game. Because they have left some possibility for everyone to win (even though the chances for Gang of 5 schools is very slim), they still have their tax-exempt status.

If they are smart, they will take what they currently have & keep things as they are. If they get even greedier & try to make their club "exclusive", they will almost certainly be hit with anti-trust cases & will be in danger of losing tax-exempt status. Even if they somehow clear that hurdle or decide they can still make more $$ playing by themselves & paying taxes, they risk the possibility of turning themselves into "minor league sports". That could make them as exciting as minor league baseball or the NBA "D" league.

Hopefully someone with more vision & foresight than Nick Saban will lead major college sports.
05-16-2013 09:50 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
allthatyoucantleavebehind Offline
Special Teams
*

Posts: 942
Joined: Apr 2012
Reputation: 24
I Root For: Penn State
Location:
Post: #16
RE: A Reasonable Suggestion for a Compromise Position for Realignment
A few thoughts...

1. The new playoff model (which is 4 teams now) and will be 8 teams by 2026 at the latest (I was surprised to see Stewart Mandel--usually a very conservative CFB writer--predict it will go to 8 by 2020!)...is going to change the thinking about losses. (Again, I cite Andy Staples' latest SI article where he breaksdown the playoffs for the past 10 years).

In reality, we've had many NC with losses recently (even two--LSU 2007) but when the field is so small, it creates the illusion that two teams were far superior to others. When the field grows slightly to 4, that perception will change, and so will CFB fans/boosters feelings about losses.

2. A "separation" does not need to exclude all games between levels. For football, 9-game conference schedules, plus 1 solid Power5 non-conference opponent, still means that schools will hope to schedule 2 auto-wins each year (MAC, Sun Belt, MWC, etc.). As for the "Cinderella" approach to CBB, it can still exist, and it may be even MORE pronounced. As the UNC/Kentucky/UCLA/Kansas type teams pay players stipends and have other major advantages, they still (I predict) will dance together in March. They may skew the formula for tournament selection to prefer P5 schools...but I think they still dance. And the regular season schedule can still include mid-majors as well.

I just don't see a complete divisional split. Heck, FBS schools were allowed to schedule FCS schools for the past decade. No reason that the future P5 schools won't be able to schedule the Gof5 schools as well.
05-17-2013 12:46 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
JRsec Offline
Super Moderator
*

Posts: 37,891
Joined: Mar 2012
Reputation: 7737
I Root For: SEC
Location:
Post: #17
RE: A Reasonable Suggestion for a Compromise Position for Realignment
(05-17-2013 12:46 AM)allthatyoucantleavebehind Wrote:  A few thoughts...

1. The new playoff model (which is 4 teams now) and will be 8 teams by 2026 at the latest (I was surprised to see Stewart Mandel--usually a very conservative CFB writer--predict it will go to 8 by 2020!)...is going to change the thinking about losses. (Again, I cite Andy Staples' latest SI article where he breaksdown the playoffs for the past 10 years).

In reality, we've had many NC with losses recently (even two--LSU 2007) but when the field is so small, it creates the illusion that two teams were far superior to others. When the field grows slightly to 4, that perception will change, and so will CFB fans/boosters feelings about losses.

2. A "separation" does not need to exclude all games between levels. For football, 9-game conference schedules, plus 1 solid Power5 non-conference opponent, still means that schools will hope to schedule 2 auto-wins each year (MAC, Sun Belt, MWC, etc.). As for the "Cinderella" approach to CBB, it can still exist, and it may be even MORE pronounced. As the UNC/Kentucky/UCLA/Kansas type teams pay players stipends and have other major advantages, they still (I predict) will dance together in March. They may skew the formula for tournament selection to prefer P5 schools...but I think they still dance. And the regular season schedule can still include mid-majors as well.

I just don't see a complete divisional split. Heck, FBS schools were allowed to schedule FCS schools for the past decade. No reason that the future P5 schools won't be able to schedule the Gof5 schools as well.

Do you think that the Go5 should be pared down further. No reduction in the number of teams but consolidation with internal mechanisms in place for playing down to perhaps two entrants into the greater playoff?
05-17-2013 12:56 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply 




User(s) browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)


Copyright © 2002-2024 Collegiate Sports Nation Bulletin Board System (CSNbbs), All Rights Reserved.
CSNbbs is an independent fan site and is in no way affiliated to the NCAA or any of the schools and conferences it represents.
This site monetizes links. FTC Disclosure.
We allow third-party companies to serve ads and/or collect certain anonymous information when you visit our web site. These companies may use non-personally identifiable information (e.g., click stream information, browser type, time and date, subject of advertisements clicked or scrolled over) during your visits to this and other Web sites in order to provide advertisements about goods and services likely to be of greater interest to you. These companies typically use a cookie or third party web beacon to collect this information. To learn more about this behavioral advertising practice or to opt-out of this type of advertising, you can visit http://www.networkadvertising.org.
Powered By MyBB, © 2002-2024 MyBB Group.