Superconferences rethought.
Sorry if this isn't quite the place for it, but whatever. With all this talk of teams jumping from conference to conference, I wonder why the D-1 teams don't look at this from a top-down perspective and try to organize something a little more sensible. That's what I've done below.
There are 66 "power" conference teams currently (12 each in the Pac-12, Big-10, SEC, and ACC); 10 in the Big-12; and 8 in the Big East.
There are another 53 teams in the "mid-major" or whatever conferences (C-USA, Independents, MAC, Mountain West, Sun Belt, and the WAC).
I propose eight conferences of 11 teams apiece. This largely leaves the power conferences in place (to balance the conferences, Colorado would return to the Big-12; Penn State, Boston College, and Kentucky would move to the Big East. Let's pretend the conference names are just that and forget that nobody would ever want to leave the Big-10).
The other two conferences would be an amalgam of the mid-major conferences. Many would be forced to reform as FCS schools, but since this is a BCS thing, they'd just have to take what they're given. Perhaps a promotion/relegation system could be in place for 2/4 spots a year in those two conferences.
Teams would play a yearly round-robin schedule of 10 games; conference championship games would be eliminated and instead you'd have rotating "BCS Play-In" games against the winner of another conference - the conference would be predetermined and rotate each year; although perhaps traditional bowl matchups (Big-10 vs. Pac-12) could be skipped. The winner of each game would go directly in to the BCS - see below
Those 4 teams would make for a sensible, and natural playoff system - a schedule of 2 out-of-conference games; 9 conference games; 1 intraconference playoff game; and 1 or 2 playoff games isn't too many games [some teams already play 14-game seasons].
If you don't want a playoff, you can use the BCS formula to add 2 or 4 other teams to the mix and presto, you've got a 13 game schedule; an ultra-exciting intra-conf. playoff game; and no real need for teams to jump around from conference to conference. It also establishes a bright-line mark for who can and cannot play for the championship.
Anyhow, either way, I hope some group decides to take control of college football and offer a coherent plan rather than the bottom-up method of conferences. Ultimately I think there will either be reform of the type that I describe, or the Pac-12/SEC may break out of the NCAA altogether and run their own football and forgo the nonmembers in their entirety.
7 comments
|
0 recs |
Do you like this story?
Comments
well..
I don’t see a particular need for the basketball (or other sports) conferences to realign – many schools compete as part of multiple conferences. Given the limited scheduling capabilities and post season process that is unique to big-time college football, I don’t see any reason these couldn’t be football-only conferences.
Any 16-team basketball conference would have to adopt a 22-game conf schedule; 11-team divisions could all standardize on 20 conference games in a double-round-robin format.
M, period. Fresh, comma.
This is interesting, but ill conceived
Academics are another facet to this argument that muddies the water. It’s not as simple as sending CU back to the Big-12 and doling out the schools evenly. This is about money; never in a million years would the big 5 (BCS minus Big East) give up their goods to better everyone. They don’t care about the schools back east and I don’t want them to. My concerns go like this…UW>Pac-12>F**k everyone else. I want Larry Scott to be ruthless in making sure that the Pac-12 is never on equal footing with the Big East in terms of football. Never, ever again.
i have always liked the idea of a relegation system
like they do in european soccer. start with 4 regional superconferences and 4 feeder conferences below them. the 4 superconference champions have a playoff to determine a national champion. other teams can play bowl games. the bottom 4 teams in each superconference are relegated and swapped with the top 4 teams in the feeder conference the following season. that way the boises and tcus can compete for championships while the dukes, indianas, and vandies have to prove they can beat the mid majors in order to play with the big boys
Is there an equal revenue split under the NCAA (or whatever body governs it)?
or is there uneven revenue. One of the things I don’t like about the pro/rel system is that it creates such dominant superpowers.
As opposed to the current NCAA system?
We have 100 teams that are even eligible to win it all in the first place
Of them, about 60 are disqualified before the season starts for not being in the right conference or having enough cred (ie, Boise, the lesser-known big conf. schools, Washington State, and a few others)
South Florida shows that you CAN spend your way in to the big time, also
M, period. Fresh, comma.
I didn't know it was a secret that you can spend your way into the big time
Ask Oregon about it. The system is broken, but there really isn’t a totally effective solution. Until somebody comes up with something that will satisfy most everyone, why overhaul everything?
















