Link: Should Div 1 form "Super" Conferences
- Thread starter Heavy D
- Start date
My quick reply is yes. I'm tired of the chihuahuas of the league barking at the big dogs. We paid our dues for decades playing with the big dogs as other tier one teams. Once the toy dogs play in a real league for years, then give them a chance. I would love to see a super conference/league with mandated attendence figures.
That's a somewhat circular argument or whatever you'd call it. The mid-majors don't deserve to be with the major teams until they've played with the major teams for years.
That confuses me :conf2:
That confuses me :conf2:
I say if they want a playoff, lets have two 16-team conferences like the NFL's AFC and NFC for FBS/D-1A football. The rest have to go to FCS/D-1AA. Just to spite all the mid-major supporters and lovers. hahahah.
Take The top 5 conferences (SEC, Big10/11, Big 12, Pac10, ACC) and leave the NCAA.
That's 57 schools
Add 8 teams somewhere in those 5 conferences (i.e. TCU, Louisville, ND, Cincy, Boise, Utah, +2 more)
Form a new oversight body for schools like these conferences that couldn't care less that Stupid U. is whining about it being unfair.
Now you have 65 teams across 5 conferences in a new organizational body with legitimate conferences and teams that care about athletics top to bottom. These are also (generally speaking) very good academic schools, as well.
Play 11 regular season games. 7 in-conference and 1 from each of the other conferences. OOC teams would rotate each year.
Play a conference championship. Each conference winner would be seeded #1 in 4 divisions (the lowest ranked champion would be #2 in the weakest division).
Take top 16 teams (5 conf champs + 11 more). Seeded 1-16
Playoff.
Alternatively, have 6 conferences of 12-14 teams each (include Big East & CUSA) structured similarly to above. the problem with adding BE & CUSA is that only about 3 or 4 of those schools are legitimate in football.
That's 57 schools
Add 8 teams somewhere in those 5 conferences (i.e. TCU, Louisville, ND, Cincy, Boise, Utah, +2 more)
Form a new oversight body for schools like these conferences that couldn't care less that Stupid U. is whining about it being unfair.
Now you have 65 teams across 5 conferences in a new organizational body with legitimate conferences and teams that care about athletics top to bottom. These are also (generally speaking) very good academic schools, as well.
Play 11 regular season games. 7 in-conference and 1 from each of the other conferences. OOC teams would rotate each year.
Play a conference championship. Each conference winner would be seeded #1 in 4 divisions (the lowest ranked champion would be #2 in the weakest division).
Take top 16 teams (5 conf champs + 11 more). Seeded 1-16
Playoff.
Alternatively, have 6 conferences of 12-14 teams each (include Big East & CUSA) structured similarly to above. the problem with adding BE & CUSA is that only about 3 or 4 of those schools are legitimate in football.
Last edited:
the only problem with of all of this is that it totally ruins college basketball... and theres a whooooole lot of bowl sponsors and boosters with alot of money who would buy off anyone they could.
The guy with that first scenario is an idiot. The Southeastern part of the United States produces the best football players in the nation and also plays the best CFB in the nation. In spite of that, this imbecile wants to realign CFB in a manner that not only breaks up the best conference in the land, but also even exorcises it's name from CFB. The "Mid-East"..........What a crock!!
Forget chopping up the SEC and doing away with the proudest name in CFB. Just add FSU Clemson, GaTech and Miami and call THAT the SEC. It's geographically correct and preserves a name that has represented the finest in CFB for almost 80 years.
Forget chopping up the SEC and doing away with the proudest name in CFB. Just add FSU Clemson, GaTech and Miami and call THAT the SEC. It's geographically correct and preserves a name that has represented the finest in CFB for almost 80 years.
Assume 64 Div I universities form the super conferences and leave the NCAA. There will still have to be a governing body formed to establish and enforce similar rules as the NCAA. There is no sports league at any level that doesn't have some form of rules and a governing body. That is true of every kids' league in every sport up to -and including- every professional sport. If you can think of any exception, point it out. The only difference between the old NCAA and the new governing body would be the new governing body would answer to a smaller group of larger schools. This might put together larger like-minded schools in a "super" conference to produce an incredible amount of football money -but nothing would escape the federal government's enforcement of Title IX which is the real budgetting challenge in college athletics. Regardless of the amount of money possibly generated by profitable college sports, I don't think college presidents would ever allow the tail to wag the dog and stand by and watch college athletics become a minor league to professional sports. That would be inconsistent with their mission of education. I just can't see that happening, nor do I think it should. Playoffs might make good TV for football fans who only see the games on TV, but not for the many participants who are actually associated with college football.
Furthermore, can you imagine a league of 64 teams with 16 of them making the playoffs every year? What do you think that would do to the regular season games? What would it do to the bowl system which is a form of rewarding teams that have had a successful season? Even with only a 16 team playoff, it would require one week between each game stetching the season a full 4 weeks at the end of the year. Do you think most fan bases would be willing to follow their team around the country on a short one week notice not knowing where or whether they would even be still in the playoffs? Suppose one week the team was on the west coast and the next week the team played in Florida. Even if all games were played in a central location like Dallas, it would take an entire month for the playoff. Would fans spend the month in Dallas or just fly back and forth for each game? Would the student athletes, bands, cheerleaders, support staff stay in Dallas until they were eliminated
-possibly for the entire month- or would they fly back and forth each week? Wouldn't a Texas team have a distinct advantage over a team that had to spend two days each week traveling back and forth?
Division I College football is unlike other sports that conduct national playoffs. It might work in lower divisions for football but I don't see how it could work in Division I regardless of how the conferences and teams were structured. There is something uniquely special about college football with games being played on campuses and the pagentry associated with the games. Our existing method of determining the national championship might have a few flaws but I don't think it would be worth the tradeoff to go to a 16 team playoff and leave a hundred years of tradition behind.
Furthermore, can you imagine a league of 64 teams with 16 of them making the playoffs every year? What do you think that would do to the regular season games? What would it do to the bowl system which is a form of rewarding teams that have had a successful season? Even with only a 16 team playoff, it would require one week between each game stetching the season a full 4 weeks at the end of the year. Do you think most fan bases would be willing to follow their team around the country on a short one week notice not knowing where or whether they would even be still in the playoffs? Suppose one week the team was on the west coast and the next week the team played in Florida. Even if all games were played in a central location like Dallas, it would take an entire month for the playoff. Would fans spend the month in Dallas or just fly back and forth for each game? Would the student athletes, bands, cheerleaders, support staff stay in Dallas until they were eliminated
-possibly for the entire month- or would they fly back and forth each week? Wouldn't a Texas team have a distinct advantage over a team that had to spend two days each week traveling back and forth?
Division I College football is unlike other sports that conduct national playoffs. It might work in lower divisions for football but I don't see how it could work in Division I regardless of how the conferences and teams were structured. There is something uniquely special about college football with games being played on campuses and the pagentry associated with the games. Our existing method of determining the national championship might have a few flaws but I don't think it would be worth the tradeoff to go to a 16 team playoff and leave a hundred years of tradition behind.
Or minimum revenue requirements (excluding bowl revenues)...
Posted via Mobile Device
Super conferences are a horrible idea. We all know the basis of why thoughts like these are being made. It's because people, including many on this board & thread, don't want to treat or give-due to the "mid-majors/non-BCS schools." Sorry to break the "old" news to you guys, but these schools ARE good, and certainly deserve to be in the mix, and be treated fairly among anyone else in the division.
And people actually want a Super Conference? That doesn't solve the controversy, it makes it worse. The ignorance people treat the division with nowadays... it's practically already a super conference. If a school isn't in a BCS conference, they are meaningless. If a school isn't an elite school, they are meaningless. It's excuse after excuse after excuse. When a non-BCS school beats a "big-boy," it's not considered a win, it's considered just one game & meaningless. If a "big-boy" loses to mid-major, they say the team didn't come or wasn't "up" to play. When the small schools started consitently beating the "big-boys," instead of saying "congratualtions, you are good!".... it became "join a better conference." Get realistic people! And get your head out of your butts. You are supposed to want the teams in every divison to progress, not regress their effort by making more and more divisions. What a way to ruin football!
Honestly, if you guys still aren't ready to give these schools the respect they deserve, wouldn't it just be easier to make an argument to send them to a lower division instead of being an arrogant elitist thinking a "super conference" is the answer.
And people actually want a Super Conference? That doesn't solve the controversy, it makes it worse. The ignorance people treat the division with nowadays... it's practically already a super conference. If a school isn't in a BCS conference, they are meaningless. If a school isn't an elite school, they are meaningless. It's excuse after excuse after excuse. When a non-BCS school beats a "big-boy," it's not considered a win, it's considered just one game & meaningless. If a "big-boy" loses to mid-major, they say the team didn't come or wasn't "up" to play. When the small schools started consitently beating the "big-boys," instead of saying "congratualtions, you are good!".... it became "join a better conference." Get realistic people! And get your head out of your butts. You are supposed to want the teams in every divison to progress, not regress their effort by making more and more divisions. What a way to ruin football!
Honestly, if you guys still aren't ready to give these schools the respect they deserve, wouldn't it just be easier to make an argument to send them to a lower division instead of being an arrogant elitist thinking a "super conference" is the answer.
So if the "toy dogs" need to play for decades in a "real league" in order for them to be given a "chance," how will you ever give them a chance when you simply don't want them in a league where they can "pay their dues" against top-tier teams?
Do you not realize the hypocrisy of your statement? Wouldn't it be simpler for you to say that you will never treat the "toy dogs" like the "big dogs" because you will never let them become big dogs?
Fury, you make some good points. However, I believe the driving force behind the "super conference" idea is a little different that you think. In the interest of disclosure, I am all for the concept of super conferences.
Take football for example. Since the 1970s, almost all of the legislation has been aimed at "helping" smaller schools get on a more equal footing with larger schools. The scholarship limits are a prime example. We have gone from a situation of unlimited scholarships, to 125, to 95, and now down to 85. If you compare the 125 limit to the 85 limit, you can see that over a two-year period you have basically a whole team of players (125-40*2=80) that is now on the other side of the field trying to kick your tail.
How has that helped the Alabamas, the USCs, the Michigans, the Oklahomas of the world? You know, the programs who basically made college football what it is today? It hasn't. The scholarship restrictions, coupled with Title IX, make it exceedingly difficult for the more traditional schools, i.e. the ones who built the house, to keep their rooms.
Take Boise State for example. A good football team, no doubt. A 35 - 40K stadium. How can they freely compete with Alabama? The answer is that they couldn't but for the current policies. Who had heard of Boise State 30 years ago except as a homecoming opponent? And how are they ever going to add as much to the pie as the Alabamas of the college football world? And why would the Alabamas of the world want to subsidize their competition?
Also, how far does your apparent philosophy of "let them bring themselves up to our level" extend? If you extend this to its logical extreme, why not just have one division and let everybody play everybody? Why shouldn't Mt. Union have its shot at Alabama or Texas?
Also, take Alabama's recent NCAA experience. If you believe at all in the general concept of being judged by a jury of your peers, do you really believe that Richmond University (home of Tom Yeager) is an athletic peer with Alabama? Especially in football? I say they are not even close, but they were still there in the person of Yeager passing judgment on something that they really know nothing about.
Not meant to flame you at all, but I think we all need to look at this from both sides.
Take football for example. Since the 1970s, almost all of the legislation has been aimed at "helping" smaller schools get on a more equal footing with larger schools. The scholarship limits are a prime example. We have gone from a situation of unlimited scholarships, to 125, to 95, and now down to 85. If you compare the 125 limit to the 85 limit, you can see that over a two-year period you have basically a whole team of players (125-40*2=80) that is now on the other side of the field trying to kick your tail.
How has that helped the Alabamas, the USCs, the Michigans, the Oklahomas of the world? You know, the programs who basically made college football what it is today? It hasn't. The scholarship restrictions, coupled with Title IX, make it exceedingly difficult for the more traditional schools, i.e. the ones who built the house, to keep their rooms.
Take Boise State for example. A good football team, no doubt. A 35 - 40K stadium. How can they freely compete with Alabama? The answer is that they couldn't but for the current policies. Who had heard of Boise State 30 years ago except as a homecoming opponent? And how are they ever going to add as much to the pie as the Alabamas of the college football world? And why would the Alabamas of the world want to subsidize their competition?
Also, how far does your apparent philosophy of "let them bring themselves up to our level" extend? If you extend this to its logical extreme, why not just have one division and let everybody play everybody? Why shouldn't Mt. Union have its shot at Alabama or Texas?
Also, take Alabama's recent NCAA experience. If you believe at all in the general concept of being judged by a jury of your peers, do you really believe that Richmond University (home of Tom Yeager) is an athletic peer with Alabama? Especially in football? I say they are not even close, but they were still there in the person of Yeager passing judgment on something that they really know nothing about.
Not meant to flame you at all, but I think we all need to look at this from both sides.
I vote yes to 6 conferences. Makes a playoff system seem easier than 5.
But please someone email me when this all happens so I know what the heck is going on at the beginning of the season and something to talk about the weeks leading up to it.
But please someone email me when this all happens so I know what the heck is going on at the beginning of the season and something to talk about the weeks leading up to it.
Couple of things that everyone needs to understand (and the columnist didn't understand it himself) before you get going with your ideas...
1) The BCS system was developed to generate money and keep it out of the NCAA's hands. Therefore, anything we have now or will ever have will be about the money and not the competition.
2) As long as the NCAA is the sanctioning body, and as long as the system is tilted so far toward the little guy (there are only around 70 legitimate football schools in the country, but 120 total D-1 schools plus all of D-1AA, D-II and D-III), we're not going to have a playoff because the NCAA would then get its hands on it.
3) In other words, we're already at the stalemate position. The NCAA retains rules enforcement, its schools get richer (and are thus "taxed" on that money to pay for minor sports) but the NCAA doesn't get greedy for the money.
In other words, everyone who matters is happy, and -- and this is the most important thing -- NO ONE INSIDE THE SPORT ITSELF is seriously calling for a playoff. Those calls have come from fans who think (erroneously, in my opinion) that the NFL system is superior, and/or from politicians posturing for votes.
But let's say the writer has it mostly right, and we're about to have a revolution in football. At that point, the NCAA will have to either be beggars, or try to leverage their position with basketball and tell the BCS/FBS schools that they can pick the "new" league, or stay in the NCAA and participate in basketball and the other minor sports, but can't do both. Many schools who could be a part of the football landscape will therefore not go, including at least two schools (Kentucky and Vanderbilt) from the SEC, Duke and North Carolina and perhaps a big chunk of the Big East and CUSA.
I suspect you'd get around 50 schools to take the plunge, which is significantly less than 70, and that will affect the money, because when you cut 120 D-1 teams down to 50, you cut down on your audience significantly. Many of college football's powers (Alabama, Oklahoma, Nebraska, LSU, Ohio State, Penn State) come from rural areas, or at least what pro sports leagues call "small markets." That will affect how much advertising can be generated for telecasts.
In other words, the economic boon this writer probably sees isn't going to materialize. And we haven't touched on what will happen to the basketball programs at these schools plus the minor sports. Now all of a sudden you are back to using football dollars to supplement the second-tier sports.
Then we have the intangibles -- undefeated seasons, probably gone. Sanctity of the regular season, gone if you have playoffs. Bowls and the associated pageantry, gone. Homecoming-type opponents that you can play to rest your starters, gone. Expenses, up. You also have to figure out how you're going to address recruiting violations and the like, or whether you're going to pay players a stipend, or whether you just plan to have an anything-goes attitude, which hurts Alabama because other schools are much more adept at exploiting those systems.
If I'm trying to make it sound like a bad idea -- I am. College football is not pro football for a reason. Some fans apparently only care about their own entertainment without appreciating the big picture. I see no reason to support 14-game seasons, plus playoffs, played among only top-level teams using players who are doing all this for free -- especially if it divides the college football landscape in the process and creates two worlds within high-level football, the NCAA world and the "new" world.
1) The BCS system was developed to generate money and keep it out of the NCAA's hands. Therefore, anything we have now or will ever have will be about the money and not the competition.
2) As long as the NCAA is the sanctioning body, and as long as the system is tilted so far toward the little guy (there are only around 70 legitimate football schools in the country, but 120 total D-1 schools plus all of D-1AA, D-II and D-III), we're not going to have a playoff because the NCAA would then get its hands on it.
3) In other words, we're already at the stalemate position. The NCAA retains rules enforcement, its schools get richer (and are thus "taxed" on that money to pay for minor sports) but the NCAA doesn't get greedy for the money.
In other words, everyone who matters is happy, and -- and this is the most important thing -- NO ONE INSIDE THE SPORT ITSELF is seriously calling for a playoff. Those calls have come from fans who think (erroneously, in my opinion) that the NFL system is superior, and/or from politicians posturing for votes.
But let's say the writer has it mostly right, and we're about to have a revolution in football. At that point, the NCAA will have to either be beggars, or try to leverage their position with basketball and tell the BCS/FBS schools that they can pick the "new" league, or stay in the NCAA and participate in basketball and the other minor sports, but can't do both. Many schools who could be a part of the football landscape will therefore not go, including at least two schools (Kentucky and Vanderbilt) from the SEC, Duke and North Carolina and perhaps a big chunk of the Big East and CUSA.
I suspect you'd get around 50 schools to take the plunge, which is significantly less than 70, and that will affect the money, because when you cut 120 D-1 teams down to 50, you cut down on your audience significantly. Many of college football's powers (Alabama, Oklahoma, Nebraska, LSU, Ohio State, Penn State) come from rural areas, or at least what pro sports leagues call "small markets." That will affect how much advertising can be generated for telecasts.
In other words, the economic boon this writer probably sees isn't going to materialize. And we haven't touched on what will happen to the basketball programs at these schools plus the minor sports. Now all of a sudden you are back to using football dollars to supplement the second-tier sports.
Then we have the intangibles -- undefeated seasons, probably gone. Sanctity of the regular season, gone if you have playoffs. Bowls and the associated pageantry, gone. Homecoming-type opponents that you can play to rest your starters, gone. Expenses, up. You also have to figure out how you're going to address recruiting violations and the like, or whether you're going to pay players a stipend, or whether you just plan to have an anything-goes attitude, which hurts Alabama because other schools are much more adept at exploiting those systems.
If I'm trying to make it sound like a bad idea -- I am. College football is not pro football for a reason. Some fans apparently only care about their own entertainment without appreciating the big picture. I see no reason to support 14-game seasons, plus playoffs, played among only top-level teams using players who are doing all this for free -- especially if it divides the college football landscape in the process and creates two worlds within high-level football, the NCAA world and the "new" world.
I long for the days when we had an NAIA divison with teams line Jax State and Troy State.
The Gulf South Conference.
Big dogs and little dogs.
I would like to see the big dogs revolt.
I hate the 25/85 limits.
If the big dogs were allowed to give more scholorships, more kid would get into school = duh
If we have 50 to 75 schools giving (say 40 a year),
the Troy's will still be giving 25,
more education!
$$$$$$, wherever the $$$ line up is how it will go.
The Gulf South Conference.
Big dogs and little dogs.
I would like to see the big dogs revolt.
I hate the 25/85 limits.
If the big dogs were allowed to give more scholorships, more kid would get into school = duh
If we have 50 to 75 schools giving (say 40 a year),
the Troy's will still be giving 25,
more education!
$$$$$$, wherever the $$$ line up is how it will go.
TideFans.shop - 25% off Fan Favorites!
TideFans.shop - 25% off!
Get this and many more items at our TideFans.shop!
Purchases may result in a commission being paid to TideFans.Latest threads
-
-
Question: Tax experts and/or lawyers; How much from a settlement should I set aside for taxes?
- Started by CrimsonNagus
- Replies: 9
-
-
-
-
