NCAA Football re-alignment?

[CliftonHanger]

I would like to get some feedback on my NCAA proposal. I am tired of schools like Boise State and TCU being able to run the table and have ZERO chance at a title. I propose we keep the conferences that are already in place, and add a 12th . With 120 teams in D-IA, each conference would have 10 teams, comprised of schools from the "power conferences" and those from the not-so-powerful conferences (no independants). Each Conference would have 2 divisions, with the winners of each division facing off at the end of the regualr season in a title game for an automatic bid to the playoffs. Throw in 4 "wild card" teams (The top 4 ranked teams among non title game winners), and we have ourselves a 16 team playoff. I know that some schools that have been in the same conference for eons will now be separated, but now, instead of Auburn playing Middle Tennessee in it's first game, it will play Alabama in order to keep the rivalry going. This eliminates "gimme" games in non-conference play, and ultimately makes the regular season mean A lot more. The schools themselves will benefit from the profits of post season play on campus. Millions of dollars will be generated back into the schools themselves. The only people losing out here are the sponsors, but in all honesty who gives a [expletive] about the Chik-fil-A Bowl, or the Meinekie car care Bowl? Really we could just name the playoff games after bowl games and we would still technically have a bowl system still in place also.

 

 

ACC

 

Army

Navy

North Carolina

North Carolina State

Temple

Virginia

Virginia Tech

Marshall

Wake Forest

East Carolina

 

Big 10

 

Illinois

Iowa

Iowa State

Minnesota

Indiana

Northwestern

Wisconsin

Ball State

Toledo

Northern Illinois

 

Big 12

 

Texas

Texas A&M

Texas Tech

TCU

Oklahoma

Oklahoma St.

Houston

North Texas

SMU

UTEP

 

Big East

 

Syracuse

Boston College

Connecticut

Penn State

West Virginia

Maryland

Akron

Ohio

Kent State

Buffalo

 

C-USA

 

Purdue

Baylor

Auburn

Vanderbilt

Clemson

Duke

Rice

Tulsa

Troy

Rutgers

 

MWC

Washington

Washington St.

Oregon

Oregon St.

Boise St.

Nevada

Utah

Utah St.

Nevada

San Jose St.

 

PAC 10

 

USC

UCLA

California

Arizona

Arizona St.

Fresno St.

Hawaii

Stanford

San Diego St.

UNLV

 

SUN BELT

 

Kentucky

Tennessee

Louisville

Missouri

South Carolina

Cincinatti

Memphis

Tulane

Middle Tennesee

Western Kentucky

 

WAC

 

Nebraska

Kansas

Kansas St

Colorado

BYU

Colorado St.

Air Force

Wyoming

New Mexico

New Mexico St.

 

SEC

 

Florida

Florida State

South Florida

Miami

Georgia

Georgia Tech

Florida International

Central Florida

Florida Atlantic

Central Florida

 

MAC

 

Ohio State

Michigan

Michigan St.

Notre Dame

Pitt

Central Michigan

Westen Michigan

Eastern Michigan

Bowling Green

Miami (OH)

 

New Conference

 

Alabama

Mississippi

Mississippi St.

Arkansas

LSU

Louisiana Tech

Louisiana - Monroe

UAB

Southern Mississippi

Arkansas St.

 

OK, So each of the title games is also a bowl. That gives us 27 bowl games. Do we really need 34? Does the big 10 and SEC really deserve to have 7 teams in post season play? For instance, last year's Insight.com bowl featured Iowa State... (7-6) vs. Minnesota (6-7). Really? And if you say that the MAC is stacked, and the Big 10 is weak, look at the existing SEC vs. the SunBelt. The way it stands right now (Boise St. and TCU being perfect examples), unless you came from a "power" conference, you don't have a shot at the title, and this is wrong. Why even have the WAC, MWC, MAC and SunBelt in Division IA, if none of those teams can EVER win a title? It's not fair. And the money issue is jaded as well. Like I stated previously, Just because Alabama and Auburn are not in the same Conference anymore does not mean that they can't still play, and this gives sponsors a huge opportunity to exploit those big games in the regular season and make them mean more. Do you have any idea on how much revenue is generated for each home game on a major college campus? Not only to the schools, but to the surrounding businesses? Let's eliminate neutral bowl sites all together. Who wouldn't want to see Michigan play Ohio State in the big house in December? Now THAT"S football!!!

[bukie]

This is lame, pointless, would never happen, and foolish in many ways. Breaking up the current conferences just to "balance" based on how teams are currently performing is the worst way to do any sort of realignment.

[jersey cubs fan]

timely

[Andy]

The proposed MAC makes me cackle. Ohio State, Michigan, ND, MSU, Pitt and 5 nobodies? And why would you put the Big 10's money schools in another conference?

[Flames24Rulz]

I absolutely love some of the conference proposals.

[CliftonHanger]

It was just something I did out of boredom to see how it would look. I could have guessed that I would get nothing but negativity in here.

[jersey cubs fan]

It was just something I did out of boredom to see how it would look. I could have guessed that I would get nothing but negativity in here.

 

Because you knew it was a bad idea?

[CliftonHanger]

This is lame, pointless, would never happen, and foolish in many ways. Breaking up the current conferences just to "balance" based on how teams are currently performing is the worst way to do any sort of realignment.

It has nothing to do with how teams are currently performing. I divided it up geographically, and took an even amount of teams from power conferences (SEC, Big 10, etc) and teams from non-power conferences (WAC, MAC, etc). And of course it would never happen, I just thought it was fun.

[CliftonHanger]

It was just something I did out of boredom to see how it would look. I could have guessed that I would get nothing but negativity in here.

 

Because you knew it was a bad idea?

 

What makes it a bad idea? Because you said so? I think if it WOULD happen, (which it never will) that it's a GREAT idea.

[jersey cubs fan]

It was just something I did out of boredom to see how it would look. I could have guessed that I would get nothing but negativity in here.

 

Because you knew it was a bad idea?

 

What makes it a bad idea? Because you said so? I think if it WOULD happen, (which it never will) that it's a GREAT idea.

 

Because there's no good reason to break up all the conferences and the way you did it was silly, at best.

[bukie]

This is lame, pointless, would never happen, and foolish in many ways. Breaking up the current conferences just to "balance" based on how teams are currently performing is the worst way to do any sort of realignment.

It has nothing to do with how teams are currently performing. I divided it up geographically, and took an even amount of teams from power conferences (SEC, Big 10, etc) and teams from non-power conferences (WAC, MAC, etc). And of course it would never happen, I just thought it was fun.

The problem, though, isn't in the conference structure so much as it is the postseason structure. It's not only a terrible plan to drastically realign conferences and blow up any rivalries you apparently couldn't remember at the time, you also seem determined to dismiss any criticism with "oh, there's that NSBB negativity" without stopping to consider in how many ways this is an awful proposal that would get laughed off the desk of any AD in an existing power conference. Would Ball State love the realignment? I'm sure they would, but it's not really up to them to change everything.

[CliftonHanger]

I realize that this would never happen, so to criticize me by saying it's silly, stupid, or lame is unneccessary. Can we look at the positives of the proposal? I DO think that we need a change to the way the NCAA does things. Honestly, is the current BCS any less ludacris than this idea? While my "blowing up" of conferences is perhaps also unneeded, I DO think that there needs to be a better balance of power, by allowing teams such as Ball State or Boise State to have a legitamate shot at a title. Otherwise let's just eliminate the MAC, WAC, MWC, C-USA, and the Sun Belt from Division IA competition and give them their own division. I invite you to make a proposal that makes more sense than mine, or even one that's better than the one that is in place now. I was just thinking outside of the box...

[Jon]

It's worth noting that the conferences are virtually independent of the NCAA when it comes to alignment. The NCAA has no say in the matter.

 

Am I the only one that cares very, very little about the national championship, anyways? It's way, way down on the list of why I love college football. I think the current bowl system is great, though some changes do need to be made.

[javy knows my name]

Honestly, is the current BCS any less ludacris

Outstanding.

[jersey cubs fan]

I realize that this would never happen, so to criticize me by saying it's silly, stupid, or lame is unneccessary.

 

All you want is for people to focus on the positive aspects of your proposal? That's absurd. It's a bad proposal and the fact that it has no chance of coming to fruition does not make it unnecessary to point out that it's a bad proposal.

[CliftonHanger]

It's worth noting that the conferences are virtually independent of the NCAA when it comes to alignment. The NCAA has no say in the matter.

 

Good point.

 

Am I the only one that cares very, very little about the national championship, anyways? It's way, way down on the list of why I love college football. I think the current bowl system is great, though some changes do need to be made.

 

I love CFB for many reasons. One of them being the fact that Boise State can beat Oklahoma in a bowl game. A reason that I don't love it is that they will never have a chance of getting a title. Think about how awesome March Madness and the NCAA BB tournament is. We could have that TWICE A YEAR!!! Wouldn't that be AWESOME?

[grassbass]

I divided it up geographically...

 

So, you took Purdue, an Indiana school, out of the Big Ten, in which you kept IU, and stuck the Boilers with a bunch of schools from Texas, Oklahoma, Alabama, Tennessee, the Carolinas, and decided to throw in a New Jersey school for good measure? And then replaced Purdue in the Big Ten with Ball State, another Indiana school?

 

I'm really not seeing how that makes sense geographically.

[CliftonHanger]

I realize that this would never happen, so to criticize me by saying it's silly, stupid, or lame is unneccessary.

 

All you want is for people to focus on the positive aspects of your proposal? That's absurd. It's a bad proposal and the fact that it has no chance of coming to fruition does not make it unnecessary to point out that it's a bad proposal.

I think you just like to argue. I wanted feedback. That includes positive and negative feedback. If you think it is a bad proposal, fine, tell me why. Don't just say "this is lame."

[CliftonHanger]

I divided it up geographically...

 

So, you took Purdue, an Indiana school, out of the Big Ten, in which you kept IU, and stuck the Boilers with a bunch of schools from Texas, Oklahoma, Alabama, Tennessee, the Carolinas, and decided to throw in a New Jersey school for good measure? And then replaced Purdue in the Big Ten with Ball State, another Indiana school?

 

I'm really not seeing how that makes sense geographically.

 

 

OK, you got me there. C-USA was comprised of schools from all over. No rhyme or reason there, but that's kind of how that conference is now.

[Tracer Bullet]

I realize that this would never happen, so to criticize me by saying it's silly, stupid, or lame is unneccessary. Can we look at the positives of the proposal? I DO think that we need a change to the way the NCAA does things. Honestly, is the current BCS any less ludacris than this idea? While my "blowing up" of conferences is perhaps also unneeded, I DO think that there needs to be a better balance of power, by allowing teams such as Ball State or Boise State to have a legitamate shot at a title. Otherwise let's just eliminate the MAC, WAC, MWC, C-USA, and the Sun Belt from Division IA competition and give them their own division. I invite you to make a proposal that makes more sense than mine, or even one that's better than the one that is in place now. I was just thinking outside of the box...

 

You may say it's just thinking outside the box. Others may think it's insane and unworkable. But you can't ask people not to criticize it for being "silly, stupid, or lame" and to focus on the positives. If you're going to post something like this, you should be prepared for some pretty harsh critics.

[grassbass]

I realize that this would never happen, so to criticize me by saying it's silly, stupid, or lame is unneccessary.

 

All you want is for people to focus on the positive aspects of your proposal? That's absurd. It's a bad proposal and the fact that it has no chance of coming to fruition does not make it unnecessary to point out that it's a bad proposal.

I think you just like to argue. I wanted feedback. That includes positive and negative feedback. If you think it is a bad proposal, fine, tell me why. Don't just say "this is lame."

 

One big reason is that you apparently didn't take anything into account other than what you perceive to be an ideal football situation. You didn't factor in what kind of impact this would have on any other sports, including basketball. There's also an academic side to conference alignments, which you completely ignored.

 

The current situation may not be ideal, but I highly doubt it's going to take something this extreme to make it better.

[jersey cubs fan]

I realize that this would never happen, so to criticize me by saying it's silly, stupid, or lame is unneccessary.

 

All you want is for people to focus on the positive aspects of your proposal? That's absurd. It's a bad proposal and the fact that it has no chance of coming to fruition does not make it unnecessary to point out that it's a bad proposal.

I think you just like to argue. I wanted feedback. That includes positive and negative feedback. If you think it is a bad proposal, fine, tell me why. Don't just say "this is lame."

 

Because the business of college football is based on the tradition of college football and the tradition is heavily invested in conferences, especially the big three longterm ones, Big Ten, SEC and Pac 10. Those are where most of your big money teams are. You are breaking those up, and adding a bunch of worthless teams for no good reason at all. It's out of the box for the sake of being out of the box without making one lick of sense because there is apparently no rhyme or reason for your new setup. If you want Boise State to get a chance at a title there's no reason to mess up everything else that's great about college football just for the outside chance that this happens.

 

And I didn't want to argue about this, I was just happy pointing out how dumb it was. But then you whined and asked me to argue with you, so now I kind of have to.

[CliftonHanger]

I never whined that I was being ctiticized. I never said focus only on the positives. I wanted to know what people thought about it. It's not like I spent weeks on this, I just think that there needs to be a better balance of power. Why do we have conferences such as the MAC, WAC, Sunbelt, etc in Division IA if none of the teams that compete in them can have a shot to beat Ohio State or USC in a national title game? That is my main point. I realize that there are 100's of other factors at play (money from bowls, tradition, other sports, etc) but my goal was to create more of a balance of power. In basketball, schools from a mid-major have a shot at winning the title every year. Remember that Bradley made the sweet 16 a few years ago? Or Gonzaga's program for the past 10 years? THink about how the level of competition would change instead of having 6 "power" conferences to having all of them balanced....

[Guest]

I never whined that I was being ctiticized. I never said focus only on the positives. I wanted to know what people thought about it. It's not like I spent weeks on this, I just think that there needs to be a better balance of power. Why do we have conferences such as the MAC, WAC, Sunbelt, etc in Division IA if none of the teams that compete in them can have a shot to beat Ohio State or USC in a national title game? That is my main point. I realize that there are 100's of other factors at play (money from bowls, tradition, other sports, etc) but my goal was to create more of a balance of power. In basketball, schools from a mid-major have a shot at winning the title every year. Remember that Bradley made the sweet 16 a few years ago? Or Gonzaga's program for the past 10 years? THink about how the level of competition would change instead of having 6 "power" conferences to having all of them balanced....

There's going to be a lot more imbalance in football than basketball for a lot of reasons. For one thing, the difference in the amount of $ a program like Ohio State brings in versus a Ball State means that you simply cannot have them in the same conference unless you go to a complete revenue sharing model.

 

The realignment currently happening in the power conferences is a much less drastic and much more workable way of dealing with the current situation.

 

Also, please note that basketball did not have to drop the current conferences in order for the Gonzaga's of the world to have a shot at making a run in the tourney.

[CliftonHanger]

Very true. Ok, so let's hear a proposal form someone that includes some sort of playoff, a balance of power between the conferences, and a playoff.