I think 4 power conferences is where it is headed.
Pac 12 needs 4
SEC needs 2
Big 12 needs 6
Big 10 needs 4
I could see the Pac 10 adding SD state, Bosie St, Hawaii, and SMU (for a Texas stake)
I could see the Big 12 adding Louisville, Florida St., Virginia, Syracuse, Pitt, and Clemson
I could see the SEC adding Va Tech and NC State
I could see the Big 10 adding Duke, North Carolina, Ga Tech, and Notre Dame
Gives the Pac 12 an entry into Texas, and solidifies the NW corner of the country
Gives the Big 12 an entry into Florida, plus some good teams up and down the coast plus a nice market in Pittsburgh and upstate NY
Gives SEC 2 teams I think most expect to end up there anyway, ans State isn't a package deal with tobacco road
Gives the Big 10 2 teams that probably make the Big 10 the basketball conference an entry to the atlanta market for their network and their golden egg in notre dame.
The Big Ten is over Notre Dame. They can go join the ACC or whatever's left of it.
Can somebody explain why the ACC is falling apart?
I don't get it either they added Syracuse, Pitt, and Norte Dame and lost Maryland and every thinks they are falling apart. Big 12 lost 4 teams and gained 2. Big East is the one falling apart. It has never been stable since adding football and had 19 teams at one time. No more conference realinment please. 10 teams in the big 12. 14 teams in the big 10. A midwestern state in the SEC (can't even get sweet tea there). Colorado in the Pac 12 San Diego was moving to the big east.
I don't get it either they added Syracuse, Pitt, and Norte Dame and lost Maryland and every thinks they are falling apart. Big 12 lost 4 teams and gained 2. Big East is the one falling apart. It has never been stable since adding football and had 19 teams at one time. No more conference realinment please. 10 teams in the big 12. 14 teams in the big 10. A midwestern state in the SEC (can't even get sweet tea there). Colorado in the Pac 12 San Diego was moving to the big east.
it is because FSU has been looking to get out for some time. If they go, their marquee football school goes (I know Clemson is still there, but they don't move the meter) the ACC as a football, and money conference goes bye bye
Can somebody explain why the ACC is falling apart?
It has to do primarily with media rights. There are three tiers of rights. First tier rights are the absolute cream of the conference: for our example, let's say Florida State-Clemson in football. Second tier rights are less desirable events that still hold value (Georgia Tech-Wake Forest in men's basketball), and third-tier rights are typically for women's basketball, the Olympic sports, and, in the ACC's case, lacrosse.
The trick is that most schools own the third tier rights, and can sell those events to networks or cable channels and collect revenue from that. They could be worth $5-15M a year, depending on the school, and that revenue does not have to be shared with the rest of the conference. The ACC sold those rights to ESPN. So, if ESPN doesn't want to show the powerhouse ACC men's soccer teams like North Carolina or Maryland, those games don't get put on television.
In the end, these moves are all about the money. The Big Ten has its own network that carries its second and third tier events, and the schools make an enormous amount of money from that. Since Maryland's athletic department is in a really rough spot financially, they don't really have much of a choice but to make the move, and it's a no-brainer from Rutgers.
Now there's talk that the Big East might dissolve if Louisville or UConn bolts for another conference, and I frankly expect both to leave. This realignment chaos is far, far from over...
having 35 bowls is much more damaging to college football than conference realignment. rewarding complete mediocrity and encouraging teams to schedule multiple "cupcakes" so they can be "bowl eligible" even if they only go 2-6 in their conference is what makes college football a joke.
I think its very good for the game to concentrate the traditional power teams in fewer conferences... it used to be that there were only two or three teams each year with a legit shot at their conference title... now its 4 or 5 and is a real championship when you win a conference.
do you really want to go back to the days where they played a whole season in the Big Ten but the only game that ever really mattered was OSU-Michigan? or when Oklahoma-Nebraska or Oklahoma-Texas and USC-UCLA were the only games that mattered in their conferences?
I even think the conferences should go to 30-32 teams. Have 4 mega conferences with 4 divisions each, all based on geography (no Boise State in the big east)... the division winners play each other in a +1 playoff, round 1 is the 2nd weekend in December, round 2 (conf champ game) is the 4th weekend in December. Then you've got your 4 conference champions who can play a +1 for the National title. Round 1 is the 2nd weekend in January and the National Championship Game is the 4th weekend in January.
The conference playoffs can rotate between the 3-4 strongest regional bowls, and the national playoffs can rotate between the big 4 (Rose, Sugar, Orange, Fiesta). So you can still keep 20 bowls in the mix as part of the playoff system, and I suppose the other bowls can remain if they choose, but they would obviously lose some luster... as if the Music City Bowl means anything right now anyway.
It really hasn't though. Look at the moves on their own. Nebraska to the Big Ten? I'd say that move has worked out fairly well for them. Texas A&M to the SEC is a little too young to judge, but has been a roaring success thus far. TCU and West Virginia to the Big XII have both shown promise. Missouri in the SEC has been a dud, and Utah and Colorado in the Pac-12 have really been invisible, but it's not like they're a national eyesore or anything.
I think the "realignment apocalypse" is overstated - the game will endure, it will simply have a different face. It will be chaotic, but this will inevitably settle down.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Legionnaire11
I even think the conferences should go to 30-32 teams. Have 4 mega conferences with 4 divisions each, all based on geography (no Boise State in the big east)...
There are barely 40 objectively good teams in I-A football in a given year, there's no way there are enough teams to fill 124 slots in the B1G, SEC, Pac-12, and Big XII and maintain the current quality of those leagues. It would make them bloated and ugly.
An alliance of small states is better than an empire, because the empire has to administer the same amount of territory with a fraction of the resources. Eight leagues is a nice, round number, and if they're all between 10 and 16 teams, they're not too unwieldy.
It really hasn't though. Look at the moves on their own. Nebraska to the Big Ten? I'd say that move has worked out fairly well for them. Texas A&M to the SEC is a little too young to judge, but has been a roaring success thus far. TCU and West Virginia to the Big XII have both shown promise. Missouri in the SEC has been a dud, and Utah and Colorado in the Pac-12 have really been invisible, but it's not like they're a national eyesore or anything.
I think the "realignment apocalypse" is overstated - the game will endure, it will simply have a different face. It will be chaotic, but this will inevitably settle down.
There are barely 40 objectively good teams in I-A football in a given year, there's no way there are enough teams to fill 124 slots in the B1G, SEC, Pac-12, and Big XII and maintain the current quality of those leagues. It would make them bloated and ugly.
An alliance of small states is better than an empire, because the empire has to administer the same amount of territory with a fraction of the resources. Eight leagues is a nice, round number, and if they're all between 10 and 16 teams, they're not too unwieldy.
same basic premise there, but you still don't fix the biggest flaw in NCAAF which is that not every team has a chance to win a National Championship. Forget that people argue about the validity of the champion in the current system, there is just no way that teams from "weaker" conferences have a chance to win a title. Look at Boise and TCU for proof of that. I'm not saying that if you put New Mexico State in the PAC that they will have a realistic chance at being successful and capturing a championship, but at least the opportunity is there if bizarro world takes over.
Otherwise, if you limit it to 8 conferences, you have to expand to an 8 team playoff between the 8 conference winners. If that doesn't happen, then we're actually taking away any hope at all for the smaller schools.
same basic premise there, but you still don't fix the biggest flaw in NCAAF which is that not every team has a chance to win a National Championship. Forget that people argue about the validity of the champion in the current system, there is just no way that teams from "weaker" conferences have a chance to win a title. Look at Boise and TCU for proof of that. I'm not saying that if you put New Mexico State in the PAC that they will have a realistic chance at being successful and capturing a championship, but at least the opportunity is there if bizarro world takes over.
Otherwise, if you limit it to 8 conferences, you have to expand to an 8 team playoff between the 8 conference winners. If that doesn't happen, then we're actually taking away any hope at all for the smaller schools.
I don't disagree with you. That's the whole argument for implementing a playoff system anyway (well, that and money). That said, I don't think what they're doing is enough, even if it's the top four teams in the BCS. I want to see a full-blown 24-team tournament like the one they'll have in I-AA next year. Based on this week's BCS rankings (with automatic bids for the conference winners), it would look like this:
the problem with a 24 team playoff is it adds 5 weeks and 5 games to the season, which absolutely wont fly. Not only is that way too long for a collegiate season, it would compete with NFL playoffs and the super bowl.
the regular season would have to be cut back to 9 games with a 10th for conference championships, and then a 5 week tourney culminating around New Years or the week after.
I just dont see anything more than a 4 team playoff being viable
the problem with a 24 team playoff is it adds 5 weeks and 5 games to the season, which absolutely wont fly. Not only is that way too long for a collegiate season, it would compete with NFL playoffs and the super bowl.
the regular season would have to be cut back to 9 games with a 10th for conference championships, and then a 5 week tourney culminating around New Years or the week after.
I just dont see anything more than a 4 team playoff being viable
Shorten the regular season to 11 games, which is what they do in FCS, and start the tournament immediately. For all but two teams playing in FCS, the season is over by December 8th, just in time for final exams. Take a breather for the holidays, play the national title game on January 5th. Integrate the BCS bowls and a couple of others into the system for quarterfinal and semifinal games and let the rest become an NIT-type system that accommodates the mid-level teams in the bigger conferences. Money keeps flowing, everybody has reasonably equal access to the national championship, everyone is happy.
The excuse that 24 teams or whatever won't work because it adds 5 weeks to the season doesn't fly with me. Division III has a 5 week, 32 team playoff while playing 10 regular season games.
If you want to make it work just cut down the non conference schedule by a couple games. Nobody wants to see Oregon vs Missouri St., Alabama vs Georgia Southern or Ohio St. vs Youngstown St anyways.
The excuse that 24 teams or whatever won't work because it adds 5 weeks to the season doesn't fly with me. Division III has a 5 week, 32 team playoff while playing 10 regular season games.
If you want to make it work just cut down the non conference schedule by a couple games. Nobody wants to see Oregon vs Missouri St., Alabama vs Georgia Southern or Ohio St. vs Youngstown St anyways.
athletic departments who get the gates of the those games like to see them, as do the schools who get paid (a nice revenue boost for small schools)
The excuse that 24 teams or whatever won't work because it adds 5 weeks to the season doesn't fly with me. Division III has a 5 week, 32 team playoff while playing 10 regular season games.
If you want to make it work just cut down the non conference schedule by a couple games. Nobody wants to see Oregon vs Missouri St., Alabama vs Georgia Southern or Ohio St. vs Youngstown St anyways.
The one I love to hear is how it hurts the kid's class schedule. When 1-AA (yes I know it's not that anymore) DII and DIII have no problems when most of their kids are actually going to college to get an education rather than play for NFL scouts.
I don't like anything more than 16 teams because then you're running the risk of having a National Champion that didn't win it's division.
NC st in 83, Kansas in 88, Villanova in 85, all teams that won the championship in Basketball with double digit loses. None would have ever been given a chance under the BCS system. What's more exciting and fun March Madness or 30+ meaningless bowls.
NC st in 83, Kansas in 88, Villanova in 85, all teams that won the championship in Basketball with double digit loses. None would have ever been given a chance under the BCS system. What's more exciting and fun March Madness or 30+ meaningless bowls.
And the regular season in NCAAB is severely devalued because of that. NOBODY pays attention until the tournament other than the extreme diehards. The regular season is also 3x the length, plus a conference tournament.
Football just has a lot fewer games and they all have much more value and impact on the final standings. I'd even be okay with the NFL cutting back their playoffs to only include the division winners.
