U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Sports > College Football
 [Register]
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
Reply Start New Thread
 
Old 04-02-2014, 03:57 AM
 
Location: Chicago
5,853 posts, read 6,521,925 times
Reputation: 5331

Advertisements

someone did mention that major the mid-majors be grouped differently than the majors. i can see merit to that. they are not the same and we can't pretend that they are. March Madness is far different than any football play off could be. March Madness gives us some 66 teams which is merely a tournament, not the selection of a champion based on merit. football could never be this way. by pure logistics, football is going to be about an exclusive group and will be based on powers of 2. 2 has been eliminated. we're at 4. the only question we have is whether that goes to 8 or maybe 16. 16 is problematic. it requires 4 straight weeks to accomplish and I have no idea how that can fit into a late fall/early winter schedule. So 8 may be the outer limits of possibility. 16 is "almost exclusive"; 8 is exclusive and thus a championship tournament of 8 can offer a real champion. nobody doubts the ability of the NFL to do the same.

Common wisdom seems to be saying we're in for 4 major conferences, 16 teams each. that's 64 schools and it leaves far, far too many out. for that reason, I like your idea of 8 conferences in the play offs. But I'd like them to be all majors, no mid majors. mid majors are not about championship play. witness NIU-FSU in the Orange Bowl.

But I do think that 8 majors with 12 teams each could do the trick. Indeed, they could easily be designed to cover the nation, reduce conference footprints back to logical backyard neighbor status with the local rivalries that stoke the flames of college rivalries and local connections.

8 conferences could take us coast-to-coast and be inclusive:

Northeast: either the Big East or some form of replacement

South Atlantic: ACC

Deep South: SEC

Midwest: Big Ten

Great Plains: some sort of Big 8 revival

Southwest: some sort of SWC revival

Mountain West: MWC

West Coast: Pac 12

who goes into the play-off: only conference champions. no selections. why not? they earned it. selections make no sense to me whatsoever. they require comparing apples and oranges. Why? because college football is more a closed loop within a conference than we realize. the reason: there is no real basis for comparing conferences; each plays in its own world. Out-of-conference games, the only possible comparison, take place in a vacuum; they simply don't relate. happening in the beginning of the season, they sort of serve as the NFL's exhibitions, but unlike the NFL, they do count. But they don't show meaning. they are played when the kinks haven't been worked out. and there is no rhyme or reason in their scheduling. a helluva lot of schools play cupcake non-conf schedules. So how do you actually compare conferences and thus their teams when they play in different ponds.

years ago, the NL and AL had 8 teams each. the only level of championship was the WS. Could you compare the relative strengths of the NL and AL going into the series. No. there was no overlap in schedules. If the Yankees won the AL by 12 games and the Cards won the NL by 1, on what basis could you compare the Yankees and Cardinals:they had no common foes.

So to me, let the conferences get their champions by playing out their schedule. heck, if they really wanted to make it all truly competitive, they could go with an 11 game round robin schedule: you play everybody and you get something far more fair than a conference championship game.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 04-02-2014, 01:20 PM
 
Location: Washington D.C. By way of Texas
18,627 posts, read 27,042,193 times
Reputation: 9576
Quote:
Southwest: some sort of SWC revival
With what teams?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 04-02-2014, 01:50 PM
 
Location: OKIE-Ville
5,412 posts, read 7,703,380 times
Reputation: 3054
Quote:
Originally Posted by Spade View Post
With what teams?
That's what I was thinking too (not just with the SWC but also a revamped Big 8).

As much as I like the idea (I really do as it promotes the regionalism that makes college football special) there's no way that the conferences are going to retroactively return to their old selves.

It's a pipe-dream. Ain't happening. There's so much money, more money than the old conference configurations could have ever dreamed, available with the current conference memberships. None will get smaller (except the Big XII when OU/Texas defect for good), and the Big Four will get bigger, maxing out at 16.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 04-02-2014, 06:58 PM
JJG JJG started this thread
 
Location: Fort Worth
13,247 posts, read 19,171,479 times
Reputation: 7005
I honestly believe that at some point, Notre Dame will NOT have any say so in where their football program plays.

Eventually, the NCAA and the other powers that be will smarten up. Even if it's 100 years from now and we're playing football on Mars, something like this has to happen. There's too much money and too much demand for Notre Dame to be treated as something special. Both sides will have to realize that at some point.

Appalachian State is coming into the FBS. Anyone got any other candidates from the FCS that will move up next?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 04-02-2014, 07:37 PM
JJG JJG started this thread
 
Location: Fort Worth
13,247 posts, read 19,171,479 times
Reputation: 7005
Quote:
Originally Posted by edsg25 View Post
someone did mention that major the mid-majors be grouped differently than the majors. i can see merit to that. they are not the same and we can't pretend that they are. March Madness is far different than any football play off could be. March Madness gives us some 66 teams which is merely a tournament, not the selection of a champion based on merit. football could never be this way. by pure logistics, football is going to be about an exclusive group and will be based on powers of 2. 2 has been eliminated. we're at 4. the only question we have is whether that goes to 8 or maybe 16. 16 is problematic. it requires 4 straight weeks to accomplish and I have no idea how that can fit into a late fall/early winter schedule. So 8 may be the outer limits of possibility. 16 is "almost exclusive"; 8 is exclusive and thus a championship tournament of 8 can offer a real champion. nobody doubts the ability of the NFL to do the same.

Common wisdom seems to be saying we're in for 4 major conferences, 16 teams each. that's 64 schools and it leaves far, far too many out. for that reason, I like your idea of 8 conferences in the play offs. But I'd like them to be all majors, no mid majors. mid majors are not about championship play. witness NIU-FSU in the Orange Bowl.

But I do think that 8 majors with 12 teams each could do the trick. Indeed, they could easily be designed to cover the nation, reduce conference footprints back to logical backyard neighbor status with the local rivalries that stoke the flames of college rivalries and local connections.

8 conferences could take us coast-to-coast and be inclusive:

Northeast: either the Big East or some form of replacement

South Atlantic: ACC

Deep South: SEC

Midwest: Big Ten

Great Plains: some sort of Big 8 revival

Southwest: some sort of SWC revival

Mountain West: MWC

West Coast: Pac 12

who goes into the play-off: only conference champions. no selections. why not? they earned it. selections make no sense to me whatsoever. they require comparing apples and oranges. Why? because college football is more a closed loop within a conference than we realize. the reason: there is no real basis for comparing conferences; each plays in its own world. Out-of-conference games, the only possible comparison, take place in a vacuum; they simply don't relate. happening in the beginning of the season, they sort of serve as the NFL's exhibitions, but unlike the NFL, they do count. But they don't show meaning. they are played when the kinks haven't been worked out. and there is no rhyme or reason in their scheduling. a helluva lot of schools play cupcake non-conf schedules. So how do you actually compare conferences and thus their teams when they play in different ponds.

years ago, the NL and AL had 8 teams each. the only level of championship was the WS. Could you compare the relative strengths of the NL and AL going into the series. No. there was no overlap in schedules. If the Yankees won the AL by 12 games and the Cards won the NL by 1, on what basis could you compare the Yankees and Cardinals:they had no common foes.

So to me, let the conferences get their champions by playing out their schedule. heck, if they really wanted to make it all truly competitive, they could go with an 11 game round robin schedule: you play everybody and you get something far more fair than a conference championship game.
Ok... I read through that and I'm just gonna point some things out.

- The playoffs would start right after Championship Week. If the FCS can do it with 16, why couldn't the FBS do it as well? (That's an argument that's never really made sense to me)

- I made it 16 teams because if and when this thing expands, I would believe that it would stop there. Not only that, but it would give 8 conference winners and the full 8 left out, just to make it even. |

- I would actually think 10 would be good. But I also believe that it should be 8 minimum and 16 maximum.

- You say "mid majors are not about championship play" and only mention NIU and FSU. But you DIDN'T mention Utah and Alabama or TCU and Wisconsin, or Boise State and OU... Conferences don't determine how good a program or a team is. It doesn't matter how good ESPN tells people certain teams are. The games are played for a reason and point of the playoffs is to be exclusive... but not TOO exclusive. That was the point of the BCS and that's gone.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 04-02-2014, 08:34 PM
 
Location: Chicago
5,853 posts, read 6,521,925 times
Reputation: 5331
Quote:
Originally Posted by Spade View Post
With what teams?
spade, it's hard for me to give the parameters here, but i suspect that it would be many of them that were original members. and i would expect that it would bring A&M back into the fold.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 04-02-2014, 08:35 PM
 
Location: Chicago
5,853 posts, read 6,521,925 times
Reputation: 5331
Quote:
Originally Posted by JJG View Post
I honestly believe that at some point, Notre Dame will NOT have any say so in where their football program plays.

Eventually, the NCAA and the other powers that be will smarten up. Even if it's 100 years from now and we're playing football on Mars, something like this has to happen. There's too much money and too much demand for Notre Dame to be treated as something special. Both sides will have to realize that at some point.

Appalachian State is coming into the FBS. Anyone got any other candidates from the FCS that will move up next?
no question that Notre Dame will at some point be forced to join a conference completely or face irrelevancy.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 04-02-2014, 08:49 PM
 
Location: Chicago
5,853 posts, read 6,521,925 times
Reputation: 5331
Quote:
Originally Posted by JJG View Post
Ok... I read through that and I'm just gonna point some things out.

- The playoffs would start right after Championship Week. If the FCS can do it with 16, why couldn't the FBS do it as well? (That's an argument that's never really made sense to me)

- I made it 16 teams because if and when this thing expands, I would believe that it would stop there. Not only that, but it would give 8 conference winners and the full 8 left out, just to make it even. |

- I would actually think 10 would be good. But I also believe that it should be 8 minimum and 16 maximum.

- You say "mid majors are not about championship play" and only mention NIU and FSU. But you DIDN'T mention Utah and Alabama or TCU and Wisconsin, or Boise State and OU... Conferences don't determine how good a program or a team is. It doesn't matter how good ESPN tells people certain teams are. The games are played for a reason and point of the playoffs is to be exclusive... but not TOO exclusive. That was the point of the BCS and that's gone.
JJG, I just don't see where the mid-majors are in the same league as the majors. And I don't think you would ever see a mid-major in such a system become a national champion.

look at high school hoops across the nation. at one time, virtually all states ran one tournament level for their high schools. it reached a point where the unfairness of the system created different divisions, each with its own championship.

why shouldn't college football do the same. why not two separate tournaments for the majors and mid-majors.

I see your point in the schools you listed above. the way i see it is that there are schools in sort of an in-between zone between the majors and the mid majors. Utah, for example, made the transition very nicely to "major' with Pac 12. Boise is the premiere program in Idaho. TCU was once a major (SWC), the same way that Tulane was (SEC). So I will more than grant you there are schools at that level that can play with the big boys. Problem is, those schools are few and far between. Look at some of the Mid-major conferences. I think the MAC is one of them, but one of its schools is at the level of Utah (former status), TCU, Boise. They definitely play a role of second tier programs compared to the Big Ten in their own region. which isn't to say they can't beat up on big ten schools; they have. indeed, some big ten programs….IU in particular….could more easily be expected to lose to a MAC team in a normal year than beat one. But that doesn't mean there are any real powers in the MAC that can take the step up. Heck, their small stadiums alone keep the out of that level of competition.

I am comfortable with selection being the core of March Madness, as noted, it size and lack of exclusivity make it far more a tournament than the selection of a true national champion.

But, also noted, for a football play-off, with its small number of schools, there is exclusivity and there is a sense of getting a true national champion out of the play-off. Why would we want to dilute the system with mid-major teams. And while we're at it, with such few slots (16 or 8) why do we want a selection system which, to me, is patently unfair. Why not make it that you earn your way into the play-off with no wild cards and no selection. If you win your conference, you're in…..and you've earned it.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 04-03-2014, 02:14 PM
 
Location: Washington D.C. By way of Texas
18,627 posts, read 27,042,193 times
Reputation: 9576
Quote:
Originally Posted by edsg25 View Post
spade, it's hard for me to give the parameters here, but i suspect that it would be many of them that were original members. and i would expect that it would bring A&M back into the fold.
I don't. I don't think Texas or Texas A&M ever want to play in the same conference with a combination of SMU, TCU, Rice, Houston, etc. Perhaps if the Southwest conference was basically the South Central conference with Texas, A&M, Arkansas, OU, OSU, LSU, Texas Tech, and some other school to get to 8, I could see that. But nothing like what you saw as conference members of that conference in 1995.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 04-03-2014, 08:25 PM
 
3,719 posts, read 3,876,167 times
Reputation: 2769
I think a conference that had Texas, Texas Tech, Tax A&M, SMU, TCU, Rice, Baylor, LSU, Arkansas, Louisiana Tech, Oklahoma and Oklahoma State would be pretty solid.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.

Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.


Reply
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:

Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Sports > College Football
Follow City-Data.com founder on our Forum or

All times are GMT -6.

© 2005-2019, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35 - Top