Conference Realignment

[Mavric]

 

 

There should be 8 conferences. Each conference champion is in the playoffs. If you don't win your conference, no playoffs for you.

Sounds terrible.

If by terrible you mean exactly ideal, then yes.

 

 

Terrible.

 

The odds of the eight best teams in the country all being in different conferences is infinitesimal. And what good is having a playoff if you're not going to let the best teams in?

[RedRedJarvisRedwine]

BAD BIG ERN, BAD!!!!

[MichiganDad3]

 

 

 

There should be 8 conferences. Each conference champion is in the playoffs. If you don't win your conference, no playoffs for you.

Sounds terrible.

If by terrible you mean exactly ideal, then yes.

 

 

Terrible.

 

The odds of the eight best teams in the country all being in different conferences is infinitesimal. And what good is having a playoff if you're not going to let the best teams in?

 

There is no way to know what the best eight teams are, there are not enough inter-conference games. It only seems fair that if you want to be national champion, you must win your conference. I also think it would be a big advantage to get into the playoffs without winning your conference. Imagine finishing 2nd your division, and not playing a conference championship game. One less game, more time for players to heal, and all other playoff teams are playing the toughest team in their conference and getting beat up. And the biggest advantage to eight conference champions in the playoffs, is the pools become meaningless.

[Mavric]

 

 

 

 

There should be 8 conferences. Each conference champion is in the playoffs. If you don't win your conference, no playoffs for you.

Sounds terrible.

If by terrible you mean exactly ideal, then yes.

 

 

Terrible.

 

The odds of the eight best teams in the country all being in different conferences is infinitesimal. And what good is having a playoff if you're not going to let the best teams in?

There is no way to know what the best eight teams are, there are not enough inter-conference games. It only seems fair that if you want to be national champion, you must win your conference. I also think it would be a big advantage to get into the playoffs without winning your conference. Imagine finishing 2nd your division, and not playing a conference championship game. One less game, more time for players to heal, and all other playoff teams are playing the toughest team in their conference and getting beat up. And the biggest advantage to eight conference champions in the playoffs, is the pools become meaningless.

 

That may be fair on one level but not in the bigger picture.

 

For example, it's quite possible that Michigan could go 11-1 - losing only to an undefeated Ohio State. But you think it would be more "fair" to take - say - an 10-3 West Virginia team just because they won the "Northeast Conference" against the likes of Maryland, Rutgers, Syracuse, UConn, Temple, Pitt and Boston College.

 

I don't buy it.

[TAKODA]

I would share my opinion if I had one!

[MichiganDad3]

 

 

 

 

 

There should be 8 conferences. Each conference champion is in the playoffs. If you don't win your conference, no playoffs for you.

Sounds terrible.

If by terrible you mean exactly ideal, then yes.

 

 

Terrible.

 

The odds of the eight best teams in the country all being in different conferences is infinitesimal. And what good is having a playoff if you're not going to let the best teams in?

There is no way to know what the best eight teams are, there are not enough inter-conference games. It only seems fair that if you want to be national champion, you must win your conference. I also think it would be a big advantage to get into the playoffs without winning your conference. Imagine finishing 2nd your division, and not playing a conference championship game. One less game, more time for players to heal, and all other playoff teams are playing the toughest team in their conference and getting beat up. And the biggest advantage to eight conference champions in the playoffs, is the pools become meaningless.

 

That may be fair on one level but not in the bigger picture.

 

For example, it's quite possible that Michigan could go 11-1 - losing only to an undefeated Ohio State. But you think it would be more "fair" to take - say - an 10-3 West Virginia team just because they won the "Northeast Conference" against the likes of Maryland, Rutgers, Syracuse, UConn, Temple, Pitt and Boston College.

 

I don't buy it.

 

IMO, that is preferable to an 11-1 Michigan team that couldn't win its division or conference becoming national champion. The worst MNC game in history was the LSU-Alabama game. Nothing will be fair when pollsters are picking the participants.

[Hayseed]

Since there was a bunch of news on Nebraska wanting to move back to the Big12 (un-true of course), I thought I would share the conference realignments I had done a few years back when the BCS was scrapped. Since it is a bye week I would like to hear peoples thoughts on how they feel the conferences should be aligned, or if they are okay with how they are today. I feel these are geographically more friendly as well.

 

Each team plays their divisional opponents with 2-3 crossover conference games (rotates yearly), 3 out of conference games with one of those being from a 'conference challenge' similar to college basketball. 6 auto bids from the conference winners with 2 at large bids or all at large bids.

 

I left off quite a few teams as I feel they should move down to FCS and try to compete. There are a few questionable teams that I left in the FBS, but I feel they could grow within the conferences. I had all the teams logos instead of text names, but it wouldn't allow some of the images and I wasn't going to go back and find out.

 

 

Pacific Conference

(North)

Boise State

Cal

Oregon

Oregon State

Stanford

Utah

Washington

Washington State

 

(South)

Arizona

Arizona State

Fresno State

Hawaii

San Diego State

San Jose State

UCLA

USC

 

Mountain West Conference

(North)

BYU

Colorado

Colorado State

Iowa State

Nevada

North Dakota State

Utah State

Wyoming

 

(South)

Air Force

Kansas

Kansas State

New Mexico

San Diego State

TCU

Texas Tech

UNLV

 

Big South Conference

(West)

Arkansas

Baylor

Houston

Oklahoma

Oklahoma State

SMU

Texas

Texas A&M

 

(East)

Arkansas State

LSU

Louisiana Tech

Ole Miss

Memphis

Miss St

Southern Miss

Vanderbilt

 

Southeastern Conference

(West)

Alabama

Auburn

Georgia Tech

Louisville

South Florida

Tennessee

Tulane

 

(East)

Clemson

Georgia

Kentucky

Florida

Florida State

South Carolina

Wake Forest

 

Atlantic Coastal Conference

(North)

Boston College

Connecticut

Maryland

Rutgers

Syracuse

Temple

Virginia Tech

West Virginia

 

(South)

ECU

Duke

Miami

Navy

North Carolina

North Carolina State

Virginia

UCF

 

Midwestern Conference

(West)

Illinois

Iowa

Minnesota

Missouri

Nebraska

Northwestern

Notre Dame

Wisconsin

 

(East)

Cincinnati

Indiana

Michigan

Michigan State

Ohio State

Purdue

Penn State

Pittsburgh

I'd go for that if each of those were 8 team conferences that played every team in the conference every year. I even go for randomly generated OC games with some formula for SOS or something determining the opponents and home field. Ain't gonna happen, but since we're just messing around with it.

[Mavric]

 

 

 

 

 

 

There should be 8 conferences. Each conference champion is in the playoffs. If you don't win your conference, no playoffs for you.

Sounds terrible.

If by terrible you mean exactly ideal, then yes.

 

 

Terrible.

 

The odds of the eight best teams in the country all being in different conferences is infinitesimal. And what good is having a playoff if you're not going to let the best teams in?

There is no way to know what the best eight teams are, there are not enough inter-conference games. It only seems fair that if you want to be national champion, you must win your conference. I also think it would be a big advantage to get into the playoffs without winning your conference. Imagine finishing 2nd your division, and not playing a conference championship game. One less game, more time for players to heal, and all other playoff teams are playing the toughest team in their conference and getting beat up. And the biggest advantage to eight conference champions in the playoffs, is the pools become meaningless.

 

That may be fair on one level but not in the bigger picture.

 

For example, it's quite possible that Michigan could go 11-1 - losing only to an undefeated Ohio State. But you think it would be more "fair" to take - say - an 10-3 West Virginia team just because they won the "Northeast Conference" against the likes of Maryland, Rutgers, Syracuse, UConn, Temple, Pitt and Boston College.

 

I don't buy it.

 

IMO, that is preferable to an 11-1 Michigan team that couldn't win its division or conference becoming national champion. The worst MNC game in history was the LSU-Alabama game. Nothing will be fair when pollsters are picking the participants.

 

 

I guess we'll disagree on this.

 

I'd rather have the eight best teams. I don't want to be forced to take the 20th best team just because they happened to be the best of the worst.

[Muck]

I'd rather have the eight best teams. I don't want to be forced to take the 20th best team just because they happened to be the best of the worst

 

How do you propose to determine who the eight best teams are? Opinion polls by sportswriters & coaches (*cough* graduate assistants *cough*). Computer rankings that are unable to predict the outcome of past games? Magic?

[Mavric]

 

I'd rather have the eight best teams. I don't want to be forced to take the 20th best team just because they happened to be the best of the worst

 

How do you propose to determine who the eight best teams are? Opinion polls by sportswriters & coaches (*cough* graduate assistants *cough*). Computer rankings that are unable to predict the outcome of past games? Magic?

 

I rather like the committee approach that is now in place. Give them access to whatever data they want and let them decide. There are too many teams to have any perfect system but that's a pretty good one.

 

Though most of this discussion is pretty pointless because there isn't any way to get back to eight conferences unless you're including the AA, MW and WAC or something like that. My personal preference - given the current conference setup - is the five Power 5 champions are in (with some caveat that the have to be in the Top 15 or so for the same reason mentioned above) and then the committee selects three teams at large, no more than two per conference.

[Redux]

 

 

 

There should be 8 conferences. Each conference champion is in the playoffs. If you don't win your conference, no playoffs for you.

 

Sounds terrible.

If by terrible you mean exactly ideal, then yes.

Terrible.

 

The odds of the eight best teams in the country all being in different conferences is infinitesimal. And what good is having a playoff if you're not going to let the best teams in?

If we had 8 equal conferences (listed in OP) and an 8 team playoff, it would be beyond stupid to select more than one from any conference over an actual conference champion.

 

Even with the way things are set up right now I think it's total BS a non champion can get in. "Hey great job going 12-1 and winning your league, buuuuuuuuut ya see Auburn played a bunch of tough games we deemed tough in July and they only lost to Alabama by 25 points who won the SEC, so we're choosing them over you. Sowwy!"

 

(Edit: It's just an example, don't read too much into it. I'm just in the win your league to earn your spot camp.)

[84HuskerLaw]

You have way too many 'insignificants' (shall we call the historically less than powerful programs) obviously.

 

The solution is really simple in my view (although many would scream bloody murder) I know.

 

You have four (4 only) sixteen team conferences for a total of 64 member teams in the new Division I (the top/premiere) league of college football prime time programs being: North, South, East and West of course. Those would be assembled from the Pac 10, Big Ten, Big 12 and SEC. Each of the existing conferences can take turns 'selecting' additional members from the current schools not already within those conferences until the 64 team total has been achieved, using a lottery method to arrange the order of selection and so on. (like a draft you might say).

 

The many schools selecting and being considered for selection would be free to evaluate and choose based on any criteria they deem appropriate (money, status, location, size, reputation, etc, etc). Once the conferences are filled to the limit, the remaining schools not chosen will be free to form their own new 'league' or division 2 or whatever they decide. They may want to form their own second league of 64 teams and perhaps someday find themselves ready to challenge for supremacy (lol).

 

The new College Football League (perhaps we might call it that) can dump the NCAA and adopt its own governing rules, regs, etc. They may decide to pay their players, and whatever other arrangements they decide are appropriate. Presumably the new league would apply to all sports but certainly football and basketball would reign supreme.

 

The playoffs would most likely be arranged following a regular season with all conferences having two divisions of 8 teams that play each other annually. There should be on a two year rotating basis inter-divisional games with 2 other teams in the conference and 2 non conference games also on a rotating basis using a lottery method of selection and each school would be free to arrange one non-conference (pre-season) game with any other willing opponent within the league. The game would NOT count in the won/loss record nor would it be considered in the determination of playoffs or other standings nationally.

 

The playoffs should involve the conference champs and the runner ups in each plugged into an eight team single elimination playoff with 'seeding' by lottery selection of the runners ups vs. the champs. Winner is the National Champions. Games would be played in neutral sites with NO 'home' teams.

[Mavric]

 

 

 

 

There should be 8 conferences. Each conference champion is in the playoffs. If you don't win your conference, no playoffs for you.

Sounds terrible.

If by terrible you mean exactly ideal, then yes.

Terrible.

 

The odds of the eight best teams in the country all being in different conferences is infinitesimal. And what good is having a playoff if you're not going to let the best teams in?

If we had 8 equal conferences (listed in OP) and an 8 team playoff, it would be beyond stupid to select more than one from any conference over an actual conference champion.

 

Even with the way things are set up right now I think it's total BS a non champion can get in. "Hey great job going 12-1 and winning your league, buuuuuuuuut ya see Auburn played a bunch of tough games we deemed tough in July and they only lost to Alabama by 25 points who won the SEC, so we're choosing them over you. Sowwy!"

 

(Edit: It's just an example, don't read too much into it. I'm just in the win your league to earn your spot camp.)

 

So you think it would be "beyond stupid" to select a 11-1 team over an 8-5 team because the 8-5 team "deserved" to be there because they won a poor conference?

[AFhusker]

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

There should be 8 conferences. Each conference champion is in the playoffs. If you don't win your conference, no playoffs for you.

Sounds terrible.

If by terrible you mean exactly ideal, then yes.

 

 

Terrible.

 

The odds of the eight best teams in the country all being in different conferences is infinitesimal. And what good is having a playoff if you're not going to let the best teams in?

There is no way to know what the best eight teams are, there are not enough inter-conference games. It only seems fair that if you want to be national champion, you must win your conference. I also think it would be a big advantage to get into the playoffs without winning your conference. Imagine finishing 2nd your division, and not playing a conference championship game. One less game, more time for players to heal, and all other playoff teams are playing the toughest team in their conference and getting beat up. And the biggest advantage to eight conference champions in the playoffs, is the pools become meaningless.

 

That may be fair on one level but not in the bigger picture.

 

For example, it's quite possible that Michigan could go 11-1 - losing only to an undefeated Ohio State. But you think it would be more "fair" to take - say - an 10-3 West Virginia team just because they won the "Northeast Conference" against the likes of Maryland, Rutgers, Syracuse, UConn, Temple, Pitt and Boston College.

 

I don't buy it.

 

IMO, that is preferable to an 11-1 Michigan team that couldn't win its division or conference becoming national champion. The worst MNC game in history was the LSU-Alabama game. Nothing will be fair when pollsters are picking the participants.

 

 

I guess we'll disagree on this.

 

I'd rather have the eight best teams. I don't want to be forced to take the 20th best team just because they happened to be the best of the worst.

 

If Mechicken does go 11-1 then who have they beaten to deserve to go to the playoffs over a conference champion? It's likely that Wisky is going to be beat the hell up by the end of the year and they look like a 3-4 loss team due to their schedule. MSU isn't a quality win anymore, so at the end of the year they will have played one top 10 team and lost that game (pretty badly I am guessing too, much like last years debacle) and they deserve to go to the playoffs because they only lost to one team who will likely be the only elite team on their schedule. I don't buy it.

[Kiyoat Husker]

I agree with Mav. 5 conference champs plus 3 wild cards is essentially the "best of both worlds" and a compromise between the two opposing views presented here.