Red Mosquito • View topic - College Football Conference Realignments/Postseason Ideas

pearljamfan80 · **Posted:** Sat Nov 07, 2009 8:25 pm

Orpheus wrote:

Honestly I think some of the games would end up being pretty bad, but I understand why people want that. I just don't think there are more than 8 teams in any given year that are likely to be the best team.

Yeah I could see some ugly round 1 games. But March Madness has that as well. But it also adds in the true underdog as well as at minimum the conference champion of every conference to have "a shot." Plus an easy early round game would be the reward for a high seed.

Wes C. Addle · **Joined:** Sat Oct 16, 2004 11:17 pm **Posts:** 45120

Next year the FCS is going to a 20 team postseason playoffs, and we are no where near a playoff in the BCS.

BCS is a FAIL.

bmacsmith · **Joined:** Fri Jul 10, 2009 5:52 pm **Posts:** 8288

i would just be happy with a top 4 thing. most years there is only around 3 or 4 teams that should get in. but i guess they won't even do that.

any more than top 8 would hurt the regular season too much.

Joesanity · **Posted:** Sun Nov 08, 2009 12:12 am

bmacsmith wrote:

i would just be happy with a top 4 thing. most years there is only around 3 or 4 teams that should get in. but i guess they won't even do that.

any more than top 8 would hurt the regular season too much.

This.

YessCode · **Joined:** Mon Oct 18, 2004 2:12 am **Posts:** 3783

Joesanity wrote:

bmacsmith wrote:

i would just be happy with a top 4 thing. most years there is only around 3 or 4 teams that should get in. but i guess they won't even do that.

any more than top 8 would hurt the regular season too much.

This.

You're right, usually only three or four teams should get in...but what if only two deserve to get in...and then there are four or five teams even behind them that could sorta deserve to get in? I agree though. There will always be controversy (especially now), but as long as there is some playoff where the champ is decided ON THE FIELD...that is key.

Skitch Patterson · **Posted:** Sun Nov 08, 2009 12:58 am

my thoughts on a previous, similar thread..

so what makes it SO important to be able to claim a true, undisputed "national champion"?

Reply:isnt that the point of playing the games, to determne a champion

In college football? Not until the last 15-20 years or so. Yes, there was a "national champion," but every one accepted that in some respects it was mythical. Conference championships and rivalry games are what it was about... and those are nice to a degree. Instead all this talk of a national titles and BCS have reduced College Football into nothing more than a debate point, where the games have become somewhat secondary to "whats this going to do to the BCS" or "this just proves the need for a playoff.

I think ultimately a playoff will happen, and it wont be a bad thing...

I just dont understand why it is so important to be able to claim a "national champion" in a sport where they wont be able to have a large enough tournament to include all the potentially deserving teams... a 4 team tourney for a 120 team league, where you dont play over 90% of the other teams doesnt seem like it would solve much.

mray10 · **Posted:** Mon Nov 09, 2009 5:21 pm

edzeppe wrote:

my thoughts on a previous, similar thread..

so what makes it SO important to be able to claim a true, undisputed "national champion"?

Reply:isnt that the point of playing the games, to determne a champion

In college football? Not until the last 15-20 years or so. Yes, there was a "national champion," but every one accepted that in some respects it was mythical. Conference championships and rivalry games are what it was about... and those are nice to a degree. Instead all this talk of a national titles and BCS have reduced College Football into nothing more than a debate point, where the games have become somewhat secondary to "whats this going to do to the BCS" or "this just proves the need for a playoff.

I think ultimately a playoff will happen, and it wont be a bad thing...

I just dont understand why it is so important to be able to claim a "national champion" in a sport where they wont be able to have a large enough tournament to include all the potentially deserving teams... a 4 team tourney for a 120 team league, where you dont play over 90% of the other teams doesnt seem like it would solve much.

To me, the appeal of dropping the BCS (or even playoff) nonsense is that it would encourage better regular season games.

I know the argument against a playoff is that it makes the regular season so important ... and I largely agree. Texas has to beat Baylor just as much as they have to beat Oklahoma, etc. But it's a problem when we get to out of conference match ups. There are at least a few teams who are willing to schedule a touch non-conference game, but really no one plays more than one, if they play any of them. These perennially contending schools should be ashamed of themselves for schedule FCS schools.

bmacsmith · **Joined:** Fri Jul 10, 2009 5:52 pm **Posts:** 8288

i just consider bowl games to be meaningless exhibition games. its about as exciting as watching preseason NFL to me. unless Tennessee is in a championship game (or maybe a BCS game), i usually stop caring about college football after the SEC championship game.

unless there is a definite number 1 and 2 in the championship game, which rarely happens.

bmacsmith · **Joined:** Fri Jul 10, 2009 5:52 pm **Posts:** 8288

YessCode wrote:

Joesanity wrote:

bmacsmith wrote:

i would just be happy with a top 4 thing. most years there is only around 3 or 4 teams that should get in. but i guess they won't even do that.

any more than top 8 would hurt the regular season too much.

This.

You're right, usually only three or four teams should get in...but what if only two deserve to get in...and then there are four or five teams even behind them that could sorta deserve to get in? I agree though. There will always be controversy (especially now), but as long as there is some playoff where the champ is decided ON THE FIELD...that is key.

yeah there will always be contraversy, but i'd rather the number 5 or 9 team get screwed than an undefeated number 3 team.

YessCode · **Joined:** Mon Oct 18, 2004 2:12 am **Posts:** 3783

bmacsmith wrote:

YessCode wrote:

Joesanity wrote:

bmacsmith wrote:

i would just be happy with a top 4 thing. most years there is only around 3 or 4 teams that should get in. but i guess they won't even do that.

any more than top 8 would hurt the regular season too much.

This.

You're right, usually only three or four teams should get in...but what if only two deserve to get in...and then there are four or five teams even behind them that could sorta deserve to get in? I agree though. There will always be controversy (especially now), but as long as there is some playoff where the champ is decided ON THE FIELD...that is key.

yeah there will always be contraversy, but i'd rather the number 5 or 9 team get screwed than an undefeated number 3 team.

Right, I would too. But what if there are two undefeated teams, one one-loss team, and six two-loss teams? But you can only pick six, or four, or even eight for your playoffs? WHich of the two-loss teams gets screwed?

Green Habit · **Posted:** Tue Nov 10, 2009 9:34 pm

Green Habit wrote:

I just had another idea on how the BCS could easily nullify the threats and whining from the usual suspects of non-AQ teams. It wouldn't screw around too much with the existing conferences, either--except for one of them.

Add six teams to the Big 12 (Boise State, BYU, Utah, Colorado State, TCU, and Arkansas) and then split it up into two nine-team conferences. For practical purposes, I'll give them familiar names:

Big Nine:
Boise State
BYU
Colorado
Colorado State
Iowa State
Kansas
Kansas State
Nebraska
Utah

Southwest Conference:
Arkansas
Baylor
Missouri
Oklahoma
Oklahoma State
TCU
Texas
Texas A&M
Texas Tech

This also resolves the looming Cotton Bowl showdown in getting included in the BCS by assigning it to the new SWC, and tying the Fiesta Bowl in with this new, geographically convenient Big Nine conference.

If you didn't want to break up the OU/NU and KU/Mizzou rivalries (they could set up annual non-conference agreements), you can swap Nebraska and Mizzou, but that may make things really unbalanced in competition (that is, if Nebraska ever gets regularly good again and Mizzou gets worse).

Then, replace Arky in the SEC with Louisville (giving them a serious booster in basketball), whose spot in the Big East gets filled by East Carolina, another common BCS buster threat.

The only serious team that gets shafted here is Fresno State. You could give them CSU's spot if you want, but the geography isn't really good for a California team over there.

I just thought of a better way to do this. Forget Colorado State, keep Mizzou with the rest of the Big 12 North and have Houston take their place. Even closer to the old SWC, and Houston may have the biggest non-AQ market--plus they can occasionally build a strong team.

Big Nine:
Boise State
BYU
Colorado
Iowa State
Kansas
Kansas State
Missouri
Nebraska
Utah

Southwest Conference:
Arkansas
Baylor
Houston
Oklahoma
Oklahoma State
TCU
Texas
Texas A&M
Texas Tech

Bammer · **Posted:** Thu Jun 03, 2010 10:04 pm

Rumors apparently flying right now...

Texas, T-Tech, T A&M, Oklahoma, OK St., Colorado.

Wow.

It would make the most sense to take those six, add Zona and ASU, and break into two 8-team divisions (East & West).

Still....wow.

Please merge if this topic/thread already exists. Couldn't find it.

Coach · **Posted:** Thu Jun 03, 2010 10:39 pm

I'm not surprised at all. The new York times had an excellent article about how all the conferences will soon consolidate into only 3 powerhouse conferences and that those would create their own football and basketball tourneys. The remaining small conferences would play in the current ncaa tourneys. Big East is poised to dissolve next.

Skitch Patterson · **Posted:** Thu Jun 03, 2010 10:40 pm

which would fit with letting nebraska and missouri to the big ten.

Bammer · **Posted:** Thu Jun 03, 2010 10:45 pm

Coach wrote:

I'm not surprised at all. The new York times had an excellent article about how all the conferences will soon consolidate into only 3 powerhouse conferences and that those would create their own football and basketball tourneys. The remaining small conferences would play in the current ncaa tourneys. Big East is poised to dissolve next.

I suppose it's inevitable. I'd rather see four conferences. 16 teams each to make the numbers round.

And leave Notre Dame out. F Notre Dame for holding out all this time...so keep 'em out.

Coach · **Posted:** Thu Jun 03, 2010 10:48 pm

Bammer wrote:

Coach wrote:

I'm not surprised at all. The new York times had an excellent article about how all the conferences will soon consolidate into only 3 powerhouse conferences and that those would create their own football and basketball tourneys. The remaining small conferences would play in the current ncaa tourneys. Big East is poised to dissolve next.

I suppose it's inevitable. I'd rather see four conferences. 16 teams each to make the numbers round.

And leave Notre Dame out. F Notre Dame for holding out all this time...so keep 'em out.

Agreed. Article. http://www.nytimes.com/2010/04/20/sport ... leges.html

dkfan9 · **Posted:** Thu Jun 03, 2010 10:54 pm

in the general topic area, seems like boise's gonna join the mwc

Green Habit · **Posted:** Thu Jun 03, 2010 11:02 pm

dkfan9 wrote:

in the general topic area, seems like boise's gonna join the mwc

This is getting a lot of rumors going 'round these parts.

I have a thread that I'll merge this one with in just a second. The amount of conference realignment rumors that are being mongered is ridiculous.

Skitch Patterson · **Posted:** Thu Jun 03, 2010 11:09 pm

Skitch Patterson wrote:

my thoughts on a previous, similar thread..

so what makes it SO important to be able to claim a true, undisputed "national champion"?

Reply:isnt that the point of playing the games, to determne a champion

In college football? Not until the last 15-20 years or so. Yes, there was a "national champion," but every one accepted that in some respects it was mythical. Conference championships and rivalry games are what it was about... and those are nice to a degree. Instead all this talk of a national titles and BCS have reduced College Football into nothing more than a debate point, where the games have become somewhat secondary to "whats this going to do to the BCS" or "this just proves the need for a playoff.

I think ultimately a playoff will happen, and it wont be a bad thing...

I just dont understand why it is so important to be able to claim a "national champion" in a sport where they wont be able to have a large enough tournament to include all the potentially deserving teams... a 4 team tourney for a 120 team league, where you dont play over 90% of the other teams doesnt seem like it would solve much.

Guys, i really like this post.

Green Habit · **Posted:** Thu Jun 03, 2010 11:10 pm

While we're at it, I concocted a crazy realignment that will never happened, but if you wanted a powerful conference that would challenge anyone else, this would be it:

West Division:
Stanford
Cal
USC
UCLA
Texas
Texas A&M
Oklahoma
Oklahoma State

East Division:
LSU
Alabama
Auburn
Tennessee
Georgia
Florida
Florida State
Miami

--All three primary recruiting states of CA, TX, and FL are under one banner, with the major markets that come with them
--Supplemented with traditional powers like OU and Bama, and other major markets like Atlanta
--Academics are pretty dang good, with perhaps a couple exceptions
--Rivalries are almost entirely preserved
--Travel would be a bitch in a few sports, but that could be mitigated with an unbalanced schedule favoring the division, which would lead to more suspense for a conference championship

College Football Conference Realignments/Postseason Ideas

Who is online