sycasey said:

---

calbear80 said:

---

How is it good news for us?

---

B1G will want to expand in response to that and if UNC doesn't want to go there then Cal/Stanford are more likely candidates.

---

BearlyCareAnymore said:

---

golden sloth said:

---

I do wonder what the final end game is for conference realignment is. I can't help but imagine that both the Big 10 and SEC continue to gobble up the final 8 - 12 big name properties and markets, then implement a system maximizing the SEC and Big 10 payouts and control with only token participation from the remaining conferences and schools. Obviously, the ACC and Big 12 drop to be mid-major level (similar to the Pac).

For the Big 10, I think they eventually expand to a total of 24 schools with four divisions of (6) schools each. In football, you'd play everyone in your division every year and play one school from the other divisions. I think they'd also schedule an SEC - Big 10 challenge where you play two games against the other conference every year (one home, one away). That is ten SEC/Big 10 opponents every season, with two cupcake home games. Each school would have 7 home game and 5 away games. That makes sense to me.

As for the divisions, I'd imagine it would be something along the lines of:

Div 1:
1. Penn State
2. Maryland
3. Rutgers
4. North Carolina
5. Miami
6. TBD

TBD: One of Clemson, Florida State, Virginia, Georgia Tech
They could also take two of the TBDs and push Penn State to Div 2 and Northwestern to Div 3.

Div 2:
1. Ohio State
2. Michigan
3. Michigan State
4. Purdue
5. Indiana
6. Northwestern (NW could easily switch will Illinois if needed)

Div 3:
1. Illinois
2. Wisconsin
3. Minnesota
4. Iowa
5. Nebraska
6. TBD

TBD: One of Kansas, Utah, Colorado

Div 4:
1. USC
2. UCLA
3. Washington
4. Oregon
5. TBD
6. TBD

TBD: Two of Cal, Stanford, Arizona, Arizona St, Utah

This assumes, Notre Dame remains independent. If they do, they can choose their division taking either a TBD spot, or moving Northwestern to Division 3. Also assumes the Big 10 can't poach from the SEC.

---

We are hanging on to a system that no longer works or makes any sense. I do think it is going to evolve to something that makes sense, but right now it is doing so in a haphazard manner that is taking too long.

First of all, let's get acceptance that College football and men's basketball are professional sports leagues now. Second of all, they are two different professional sports leagues. There is really no reason that schools in the same football conference need to also be in the same basketball conference.

College football and basketball are fundamentally different business models. Football is hell expensive. You need 5 times the number of quality players to field a competitive football team than you need in basketball, meaning a lower level team can't get lucky with one or two guys and compete. There is more money making potential in football. Football is more about a whole system of strength and conditioning to develop bodies. A 240 lb player cannot just outskill a 300lb player. As a result, a school like St. Mary's can compete in basketball where even if they wanted to they have no chance to compete in football.

Just discussing football because I think it is more black and white. There are not 40, 50, 60 teams that are financially viable. Pro sports leagues in the US have pretty well settled in around 30 teams, I think there is a good reason for this. Get much beyond that and you spread the product too thin. Also, the disparity between the haves and the have nots is just too great.

The college football organization has been blown up. The NCAA was barely a business organization and it was terrible at it. The SEC and the Big 10 are the de facto major leagues here. They need to join together with business sponsorship and form a league that is an actual private business not related to school administrations or state governments. They need to have a league of 32 or 36 teams. They have the management invite teams to apply and then pick the teams based on long term financial viability and that is it. They form a self contained league and they do not play anybody else. Structure the league similar to the NFL. Similar schedules. Similar playoffs so you don't have this idiotic "I lost two games now I'm out" BS. And It will be best for all concerned. Cut off the dreams of the teams that can't accept that they can never compete so they stop being idiots with their money. Then out of those teams you'll see another league - cheaper to run because they can't afford more - that will form out of the next 32 or 36 teams.

This would also bring more stability with the personnel. The top league will barely recruit high school players because they are too risky and be subject to leaving anyway. They will take only the very cream of the crop out of high school and otherwise hire guys who have proven themselves in the lower leagues. The lower leagues would be made up of young players and experienced players who can't make it in the top leagues.

There would be a lot more stability and competitiveness within leagues. No more 60 point destruction games. Games would be a lot more entertaining with more evenly matched teams. Teams would spend the appropriate amount of money for their level because they wouldn't all be trying to follow a fantasy of getting into a higher level.

The current system is killing midrange teams. It is like watching a car race where a bunch of drivers in Yugo's are burning out their engines with their pedal to the floor, trying to keep up with Porsches.

I honestly think separating the top from the middle will reinvigorate the middle tier allowing them to play competitive games and compete for championships as medium sized frogs in medium sized ponds.

---

BearlyCareAnymore said:

---

golden sloth said:

---

I do wonder what the final end game is for conference realignment is. I can't help but imagine that both the Big 10 and SEC continue to gobble up the final 8 - 12 big name properties and markets, then implement a system maximizing the SEC and Big 10 payouts and control with only token participation from the remaining conferences and schools. Obviously, the ACC and Big 12 drop to be mid-major level (similar to the Pac).

For the Big 10, I think they eventually expand to a total of 24 schools with four divisions of (6) schools each. In football, you'd play everyone in your division every year and play one school from the other divisions. I think they'd also schedule an SEC - Big 10 challenge where you play two games against the other conference every year (one home, one away). That is ten SEC/Big 10 opponents every season, with two cupcake home games. Each school would have 7 home game and 5 away games. That makes sense to me.

As for the divisions, I'd imagine it would be something along the lines of:

Div 1:
1. Penn State
2. Maryland
3. Rutgers
4. North Carolina
5. Miami
6. TBD

TBD: One of Clemson, Florida State, Virginia, Georgia Tech
They could also take two of the TBDs and push Penn State to Div 2 and Northwestern to Div 3.

Div 2:
1. Ohio State
2. Michigan
3. Michigan State
4. Purdue
5. Indiana
6. Northwestern (NW could easily switch will Illinois if needed)

Div 3:
1. Illinois
2. Wisconsin
3. Minnesota
4. Iowa
5. Nebraska
6. TBD

TBD: One of Kansas, Utah, Colorado

Div 4:
1. USC
2. UCLA
3. Washington
4. Oregon
5. TBD
6. TBD

TBD: Two of Cal, Stanford, Arizona, Arizona St, Utah

This assumes, Notre Dame remains independent. If they do, they can choose their division taking either a TBD spot, or moving Northwestern to Division 3. Also assumes the Big 10 can't poach from the SEC.

---

We are hanging on to a system that no longer works or makes any sense. I do think it is going to evolve to something that makes sense, but right now it is doing so in a haphazard manner that is taking too long.

First of all, let's get acceptance that College football and men's basketball are professional sports leagues now. Second of all, they are two different professional sports leagues. There is really no reason that schools in the same football conference need to also be in the same basketball conference.

College football and basketball are fundamentally different business models. Football is hell expensive. You need 5 times the number of quality players to field a competitive football team than you need in basketball, meaning a lower level team can't get lucky with one or two guys and compete. There is more money making potential in football. Football is more about a whole system of strength and conditioning to develop bodies. A 240 lb player cannot just outskill a 300lb player. As a result, a school like St. Mary's can compete in basketball where even if they wanted to they have no chance to compete in football.

Just discussing football because I think it is more black and white. There are not 40, 50, 60 teams that are financially viable. Pro sports leagues in the US have pretty well settled in around 30 teams, I think there is a good reason for this. Get much beyond that and you spread the product too thin. Also, the disparity between the haves and the have nots is just too great.

The college football organization has been blown up. The NCAA was barely a business organization and it was terrible at it. The SEC and the Big 10 are the de facto major leagues here. They need to join together with business sponsorship and form a league that is an actual private business not related to school administrations or state governments. They need to have a league of 32 or 36 teams. They have the management invite teams to apply and then pick the teams based on long term financial viability and that is it. They form a self contained league and they do not play anybody else. Structure the league similar to the NFL. Similar schedules. Similar playoffs so you don't have this idiotic "I lost two games now I'm out" BS. And It will be best for all concerned. Cut off the dreams of the teams that can't accept that they can never compete so they stop being idiots with their money. Then out of those teams you'll see another league - cheaper to run because they can't afford more - that will form out of the next 32 or 36 teams.

This would also bring more stability with the personnel. The top league will barely recruit high school players because they are too risky and be subject to leaving anyway. They will take only the very cream of the crop out of high school and otherwise hire guys who have proven themselves in the lower leagues. The lower leagues would be made up of young players and experienced players who can't make it in the top leagues.

There would be a lot more stability and competitiveness within leagues. No more 60 point destruction games. Games would be a lot more entertaining with more evenly matched teams. Teams would spend the appropriate amount of money for their level because they wouldn't all be trying to follow a fantasy of getting into a higher level.

The current system is killing midrange teams. It is like watching a car race where a bunch of drivers in Yugo's are burning out their engines with their pedal to the floor, trying to keep up with Porsches.

I honestly think separating the top from the middle will reinvigorate the middle tier allowing them to play competitive games and compete for championships as medium sized frogs in medium sized ponds.

---

BearoutEast67 said:

---

Eventually, there will be only two leagues: Union and Confederacy.

---

golden sloth said:

---

I do wonder what the final end game is for conference realignment is. I can't help but imagine that both the Big 10 and SEC continue to gobble up the final 8 - 12 big name properties and markets, then implement a system maximizing the SEC and Big 10 payouts and control with only token participation from the remaining conferences and schools. Obviously, the ACC and Big 12 drop to be mid-major level (similar to the Pac).

For the Big 10, I think they eventually expand to a total of 24 schools with four divisions of (6) schools each. In football, you'd play everyone in your division every year and play one school from the other divisions. I think they'd also schedule an SEC - Big 10 challenge where you play two games against the other conference every year (one home, one away). That is ten SEC/Big 10 opponents every season, with two cupcake home games. Each school would have 7 home game and 5 away games. That makes sense to me.

As for the divisions, I'd imagine it would be something along the lines of:

Div 1:
1. Penn State
2. Maryland
3. Rutgers
4. North Carolina
5. Miami
6. TBD

TBD: One of Clemson, Florida State, Virginia, Georgia Tech
They could also take two of the TBDs and push Penn State to Div 2 and Northwestern to Div 3.

Div 2:
1. Ohio State
2. Michigan
3. Michigan State
4. Purdue
5. Indiana
6. Northwestern (NW could easily switch will Illinois if needed)

Div 3:
1. Illinois
2. Wisconsin
3. Minnesota
4. Iowa
5. Nebraska
6. TBD

TBD: One of Kansas, Utah, Colorado

Div 4:
1. USC
2. UCLA
3. Washington
4. Oregon
5. TBD
6. TBD

TBD: Two of Cal, Stanford, Arizona, Arizona St, Utah

This assumes, Notre Dame remains independent. If they do, they can choose their division taking either a TBD spot, or moving Northwestern to Division 3. Also assumes the Big 10 can't poach from the SEC.

---

wifeisafurd said:

---

golden sloth said:

---

I do wonder what the final end game is for conference realignment is. I can't help but imagine that both the Big 10 and SEC continue to gobble up the final 8 - 12 big name properties and markets, then implement a system maximizing the SEC and Big 10 payouts and control with only token participation from the remaining conferences and schools. Obviously, the ACC and Big 12 drop to be mid-major level (similar to the Pac).

For the Big 10, I think they eventually expand to a total of 24 schools with four divisions of (6) schools each. In football, you'd play everyone in your division every year and play one school from the other divisions. I think they'd also schedule an SEC - Big 10 challenge where you play two games against the other conference every year (one home, one away). That is ten SEC/Big 10 opponents every season, with two cupcake home games. Each school would have 7 home game and 5 away games. That makes sense to me.

As for the divisions, I'd imagine it would be something along the lines of:

Div 1:
1. Penn State
2. Maryland
3. Rutgers
4. North Carolina
5. Miami
6. TBD

TBD: One of Clemson, Florida State, Virginia, Georgia Tech
They could also take two of the TBDs and push Penn State to Div 2 and Northwestern to Div 3.

Div 2:
1. Ohio State
2. Michigan
3. Michigan State
4. Purdue
5. Indiana
6. Northwestern (NW could easily switch will Illinois if needed)

Div 3:
1. Illinois
2. Wisconsin
3. Minnesota
4. Iowa
5. Nebraska
6. TBD

TBD: One of Kansas, Utah, Colorado

Div 4:
1. USC
2. UCLA
3. Washington
4. Oregon
5. TBD
6. TBD

TBD: Two of Cal, Stanford, Arizona, Arizona St, Utah

This assumes, Notre Dame remains independent. If they do, they can choose their division taking either a TBD spot, or moving Northwestern to Division 3. Also assumes the Big 10 can't poach from the SEC.

---

This is interesting stuff. One observation is this framework really doesn't work for basketball. If that sport mattered, you have UConn, Gonzaga, Duke and other elite programs in.conferences. You also lose the concept that academics matter. Then again, TV revenues seem to drive realignment, so this structure starts making sense.

---

sycasey said:

---

wifeisafurd said:

---

golden sloth said:

---

I do wonder what the final end game is for conference realignment is. I can't help but imagine that both the Big 10 and SEC continue to gobble up the final 8 - 12 big name properties and markets, then implement a system maximizing the SEC and Big 10 payouts and control with only token participation from the remaining conferences and schools. Obviously, the ACC and Big 12 drop to be mid-major level (similar to the Pac).

For the Big 10, I think they eventually expand to a total of 24 schools with four divisions of (6) schools each. In football, you'd play everyone in your division every year and play one school from the other divisions. I think they'd also schedule an SEC - Big 10 challenge where you play two games against the other conference every year (one home, one away). That is ten SEC/Big 10 opponents every season, with two cupcake home games. Each school would have 7 home game and 5 away games. That makes sense to me.

As for the divisions, I'd imagine it would be something along the lines of:

Div 1:
1. Penn State
2. Maryland
3. Rutgers
4. North Carolina
5. Miami
6. TBD

TBD: One of Clemson, Florida State, Virginia, Georgia Tech
They could also take two of the TBDs and push Penn State to Div 2 and Northwestern to Div 3.

Div 2:
1. Ohio State
2. Michigan
3. Michigan State
4. Purdue
5. Indiana
6. Northwestern (NW could easily switch will Illinois if needed)

Div 3:
1. Illinois
2. Wisconsin
3. Minnesota
4. Iowa
5. Nebraska
6. TBD

TBD: One of Kansas, Utah, Colorado

Div 4:
1. USC
2. UCLA
3. Washington
4. Oregon
5. TBD
6. TBD

TBD: Two of Cal, Stanford, Arizona, Arizona St, Utah

This assumes, Notre Dame remains independent. If they do, they can choose their division taking either a TBD spot, or moving Northwestern to Division 3. Also assumes the Big 10 can't poach from the SEC.

---

This is interesting stuff. One observation is this framework really doesn't work for basketball. If that sport mattered, you have UConn, Gonzaga, Duke and other elite programs in.conferences. You also lose the concept that academics matter. Then again, TV revenues seem to drive realignment, so this structure starts making sense.

---

Maybe the need is for football to have a conference structure completely different from all other sports.

---

golden sloth said:

---

sycasey said:

---

wifeisafurd said:

---

---

Maybe the need is for football to have a conference structure completely different from all other sports.

---

Chip Kelly made that point a few years ago and it's a good, logical point and an easy adjustment.

Have conference affiliation for football be separated from all the other sports. The other sports can be regional (thus save a ton on travel), and frees up football to chase that money with the national super conference model (even though I still hate the national conference model).

---

BearSD said:

---

golden sloth said:

---

sycasey said:

---

Maybe the need is for football to have a conference structure completely different from all other sports.

---

Chip Kelly made that point a few years ago and it's a good, logical point and an easy adjustment.

Have conference affiliation for football be separated from all the other sports. The other sports can be regional (thus save a ton on travel), and frees up football to chase that money with the national super conference model (even though I still hate the national conference model).

---

This won't ever happen because the schools that have the biggest brands (Big Ten and SEC) are getting the benefit of those brands in sports other than football and won't give it up.

UCLA, USC and Oregon are using Big Ten membership to their advantage in all Big Ten sports, not just football. USC just signed the top recruit in women's basketball -- that wouldn't happen if only football was in the Big Ten and basketball and other sports were in some lesser-status regional conference like the Big West. The SEC is the best conference in baseball and softball, and there's no way Texas will give up SEC branding in those sports just to put them in some regional league with other Texas colleges. Etc., etc.

---

sycasey said:

---

wifeisafurd said:

---

golden sloth said:

---

I do wonder what the final end game is for conference realignment is. I can't help but imagine that both the Big 10 and SEC continue to gobble up the final 8 - 12 big name properties and markets, then implement a system maximizing the SEC and Big 10 payouts and control with only token participation from the remaining conferences and schools. Obviously, the ACC and Big 12 drop to be mid-major level (similar to the Pac).

For the Big 10, I think they eventually expand to a total of 24 schools with four divisions of (6) schools each. In football, you'd play everyone in your division every year and play one school from the other divisions. I think they'd also schedule an SEC - Big 10 challenge where you play two games against the other conference every year (one home, one away). That is ten SEC/Big 10 opponents every season, with two cupcake home games. Each school would have 7 home game and 5 away games. That makes sense to me.

As for the divisions, I'd imagine it would be something along the lines of:

Div 1:
1. Penn State
2. Maryland
3. Rutgers
4. North Carolina
5. Miami
6. TBD

TBD: One of Clemson, Florida State, Virginia, Georgia Tech
They could also take two of the TBDs and push Penn State to Div 2 and Northwestern to Div 3.

Div 2:
1. Ohio State
2. Michigan
3. Michigan State
4. Purdue
5. Indiana
6. Northwestern (NW could easily switch will Illinois if needed)

Div 3:
1. Illinois
2. Wisconsin
3. Minnesota
4. Iowa
5. Nebraska
6. TBD

TBD: One of Kansas, Utah, Colorado

Div 4:
1. USC
2. UCLA
3. Washington
4. Oregon
5. TBD
6. TBD

TBD: Two of Cal, Stanford, Arizona, Arizona St, Utah

This assumes, Notre Dame remains independent. If they do, they can choose their division taking either a TBD spot, or moving Northwestern to Division 3. Also assumes the Big 10 can't poach from the SEC.

---

This is interesting stuff. One observation is this framework really doesn't work for basketball. If that sport mattered, you have UConn, Gonzaga, Duke and other elite programs in.conferences. You also lose the concept that academics matter. Then again, TV revenues seem to drive realignment, so this structure starts making sense.

---

Maybe the need is for football to have a conference structure completely different from all other sports.

---

Quote:

---

If sports other than football mattered, Duke, Kansas, or Arizona would not be threatened by being left out of the two power conferences.

---

wifeisafurd said:

---

sycasey said:

---

wifeisafurd said:

---

golden sloth said:

---

I do wonder what the final end game is for conference realignment is. I can't help but imagine that both the Big 10 and SEC continue to gobble up the final 8 - 12 big name properties and markets, then implement a system maximizing the SEC and Big 10 payouts and control with only token participation from the remaining conferences and schools. Obviously, the ACC and Big 12 drop to be mid-major level (similar to the Pac).

For the Big 10, I think they eventually expand to a total of 24 schools with four divisions of (6) schools each. In football, you'd play everyone in your division every year and play one school from the other divisions. I think they'd also schedule an SEC - Big 10 challenge where you play two games against the other conference every year (one home, one away). That is ten SEC/Big 10 opponents every season, with two cupcake home games. Each school would have 7 home game and 5 away games. That makes sense to me.

As for the divisions, I'd imagine it would be something along the lines of:

Div 1:
1. Penn State
2. Maryland
3. Rutgers
4. North Carolina
5. Miami
6. TBD

TBD: One of Clemson, Florida State, Virginia, Georgia Tech
They could also take two of the TBDs and push Penn State to Div 2 and Northwestern to Div 3.

Div 2:
1. Ohio State
2. Michigan
3. Michigan State
4. Purdue
5. Indiana
6. Northwestern (NW could easily switch will Illinois if needed)

Div 3:
1. Illinois
2. Wisconsin
3. Minnesota
4. Iowa
5. Nebraska
6. TBD

TBD: One of Kansas, Utah, Colorado

Div 4:
1. USC
2. UCLA
3. Washington
4. Oregon
5. TBD
6. TBD

TBD: Two of Cal, Stanford, Arizona, Arizona St, Utah

This assumes, Notre Dame remains independent. If they do, they can choose their division taking either a TBD spot, or moving Northwestern to Division 3. Also assumes the Big 10 can't poach from the SEC.

---

This is interesting stuff. One observation is this framework really doesn't work for basketball. If that sport mattered, you have UConn, Gonzaga, Duke and other elite programs in.conferences. You also lose the concept that academics matter. Then again, TV revenues seem to drive realignment, so this structure starts making sense.

---

Maybe the need is for football to have a conference structure completely different from all other sports.

---

Assuming the folks in the robes allow that.

---

GivemTheAxe said:

---

BearlyCareAnymore said:

---

golden sloth said:

---

I do wonder what the final end game is for conference realignment is. I can't help but imagine that both the Big 10 and SEC continue to gobble up the final 8 - 12 big name properties and markets, then implement a system maximizing the SEC and Big 10 payouts and control with only token participation from the remaining conferences and schools. Obviously, the ACC and Big 12 drop to be mid-major level (similar to the Pac).

For the Big 10, I think they eventually expand to a total of 24 schools with four divisions of (6) schools each. In football, you'd play everyone in your division every year and play one school from the other divisions. I think they'd also schedule an SEC - Big 10 challenge where you play two games against the other conference every year (one home, one away). That is ten SEC/Big 10 opponents every season, with two cupcake home games. Each school would have 7 home game and 5 away games. That makes sense to me.

As for the divisions, I'd imagine it would be something along the lines of:

Div 1:
1. Penn State
2. Maryland
3. Rutgers
4. North Carolina
5. Miami
6. TBD

TBD: One of Clemson, Florida State, Virginia, Georgia Tech
They could also take two of the TBDs and push Penn State to Div 2 and Northwestern to Div 3.

Div 2:
1. Ohio State
2. Michigan
3. Michigan State
4. Purdue
5. Indiana
6. Northwestern (NW could easily switch will Illinois if needed)

Div 3:
1. Illinois
2. Wisconsin
3. Minnesota
4. Iowa
5. Nebraska
6. TBD

TBD: One of Kansas, Utah, Colorado

Div 4:
1. USC
2. UCLA
3. Washington
4. Oregon
5. TBD
6. TBD

TBD: Two of Cal, Stanford, Arizona, Arizona St, Utah

This assumes, Notre Dame remains independent. If they do, they can choose their division taking either a TBD spot, or moving Northwestern to Division 3. Also assumes the Big 10 can't poach from the SEC.

---

We are hanging on to a system that no longer works or makes any sense. I do think it is going to evolve to something that makes sense, but right now it is doing so in a haphazard manner that is taking too long.

First of all, let's get acceptance that College football and men's basketball are professional sports leagues now. Second of all, they are two different professional sports leagues. There is really no reason that schools in the same football conference need to also be in the same basketball conference.

College football and basketball are fundamentally different business models. Football is hell expensive. You need 5 times the number of quality players to field a competitive football team than you need in basketball, meaning a lower level team can't get lucky with one or two guys and compete. There is more money making potential in football. Football is more about a whole system of strength and conditioning to develop bodies. A 240 lb player cannot just outskill a 300lb player. As a result, a school like St. Mary's can compete in basketball where even if they wanted to they have no chance to compete in football.

Just discussing football because I think it is more black and white. There are not 40, 50, 60 teams that are financially viable. Pro sports leagues in the US have pretty well settled in around 30 teams, I think there is a good reason for this. Get much beyond that and you spread the product too thin. Also, the disparity between the haves and the have nots is just too great.

The college football organization has been blown up. The NCAA was barely a business organization and it was terrible at it. The SEC and the Big 10 are the de facto major leagues here. They need to join together with business sponsorship and form a league that is an actual private business not related to school administrations or state governments. They need to have a league of 32 or 36 teams. They have the management invite teams to apply and then pick the teams based on long term financial viability and that is it. They form a self contained league and they do not play anybody else. Structure the league similar to the NFL. Similar schedules. Similar playoffs so you don't have this idiotic "I lost two games now I'm out" BS. And It will be best for all concerned. Cut off the dreams of the teams that can't accept that they can never compete so they stop being idiots with their money. Then out of those teams you'll see another league - cheaper to run because they can't afford more - that will form out of the next 32 or 36 teams.

This would also bring more stability with the personnel. The top league will barely recruit high school players because they are too risky and be subject to leaving anyway. They will take only the very cream of the crop out of high school and otherwise hire guys who have proven themselves in the lower leagues. The lower leagues would be made up of young players and experienced players who can't make it in the top leagues.

There would be a lot more stability and competitiveness within leagues. No more 60 point destruction games. Games would be a lot more entertaining with more evenly matched teams. Teams would spend the appropriate amount of money for their level because they wouldn't all be trying to follow a fantasy of getting into a higher level.

The current system is killing midrange teams. It is like watching a car race where a bunch of drivers in Yugo's are burning out their engines with their pedal to the floor, trying to keep up with Porsches.

I honestly think separating the top from the middle will reinvigorate the middle tier allowing them to play competitive games and compete for championships as medium sized frogs in medium sized ponds.

---

I am not arguing with your reasoning. But to me if there is major shrinkage in the number of viable college teams, it will shrink the available players who can be recruited by the Pros.
Right now there is a very large pool of potential Pro players. Many come out of Podunk Universities.
What happens when that large pool dries up to just 32 or 36 teams.
Remember that A. Rodgers was recruited by Cal of a J.C. because no other school wanted to take a chance on him.
Take away Cal and there would have been no A. Rodgers.
Take away Cal and that would likely dry up J.C. football.
Which schools (4-year or J.C. would be willing to spend money to keep alive College Football if that school has no hope of making its college football program economically feasible.)

I see Pro Football sowing the seeds of its own destruction in the long run.

---

sycasey said:

---

GivemTheAxe said:

---

BearlyCareAnymore said:

---

golden sloth said:

---

I do wonder what the final end game is for conference realignment is. I can't help but imagine that both the Big 10 and SEC continue to gobble up the final 8 - 12 big name properties and markets, then implement a system maximizing the SEC and Big 10 payouts and control with only token participation from the remaining conferences and schools. Obviously, the ACC and Big 12 drop to be mid-major level (similar to the Pac).

For the Big 10, I think they eventually expand to a total of 24 schools with four divisions of (6) schools each. In football, you'd play everyone in your division every year and play one school from the other divisions. I think they'd also schedule an SEC - Big 10 challenge where you play two games against the other conference every year (one home, one away). That is ten SEC/Big 10 opponents every season, with two cupcake home games. Each school would have 7 home game and 5 away games. That makes sense to me.

As for the divisions, I'd imagine it would be something along the lines of:

Div 1:
1. Penn State
2. Maryland
3. Rutgers
4. North Carolina
5. Miami
6. TBD

TBD: One of Clemson, Florida State, Virginia, Georgia Tech
They could also take two of the TBDs and push Penn State to Div 2 and Northwestern to Div 3.

Div 2:
1. Ohio State
2. Michigan
3. Michigan State
4. Purdue
5. Indiana
6. Northwestern (NW could easily switch will Illinois if needed)

Div 3:
1. Illinois
2. Wisconsin
3. Minnesota
4. Iowa
5. Nebraska
6. TBD

TBD: One of Kansas, Utah, Colorado

Div 4:
1. USC
2. UCLA
3. Washington
4. Oregon
5. TBD
6. TBD

TBD: Two of Cal, Stanford, Arizona, Arizona St, Utah

This assumes, Notre Dame remains independent. If they do, they can choose their division taking either a TBD spot, or moving Northwestern to Division 3. Also assumes the Big 10 can't poach from the SEC.

---

We are hanging on to a system that no longer works or makes any sense. I do think it is going to evolve to something that makes sense, but right now it is doing so in a haphazard manner that is taking too long.

First of all, let's get acceptance that College football and men's basketball are professional sports leagues now. Second of all, they are two different professional sports leagues. There is really no reason that schools in the same football conference need to also be in the same basketball conference.

College football and basketball are fundamentally different business models. Football is hell expensive. You need 5 times the number of quality players to field a competitive football team than you need in basketball, meaning a lower level team can't get lucky with one or two guys and compete. There is more money making potential in football. Football is more about a whole system of strength and conditioning to develop bodies. A 240 lb player cannot just outskill a 300lb player. As a result, a school like St. Mary's can compete in basketball where even if they wanted to they have no chance to compete in football.

Just discussing football because I think it is more black and white. There are not 40, 50, 60 teams that are financially viable. Pro sports leagues in the US have pretty well settled in around 30 teams, I think there is a good reason for this. Get much beyond that and you spread the product too thin. Also, the disparity between the haves and the have nots is just too great.

The college football organization has been blown up. The NCAA was barely a business organization and it was terrible at it. The SEC and the Big 10 are the de facto major leagues here. They need to join together with business sponsorship and form a league that is an actual private business not related to school administrations or state governments. They need to have a league of 32 or 36 teams. They have the management invite teams to apply and then pick the teams based on long term financial viability and that is it. They form a self contained league and they do not play anybody else. Structure the league similar to the NFL. Similar schedules. Similar playoffs so you don't have this idiotic "I lost two games now I'm out" BS. And It will be best for all concerned. Cut off the dreams of the teams that can't accept that they can never compete so they stop being idiots with their money. Then out of those teams you'll see another league - cheaper to run because they can't afford more - that will form out of the next 32 or 36 teams.

This would also bring more stability with the personnel. The top league will barely recruit high school players because they are too risky and be subject to leaving anyway. They will take only the very cream of the crop out of high school and otherwise hire guys who have proven themselves in the lower leagues. The lower leagues would be made up of young players and experienced players who can't make it in the top leagues.

There would be a lot more stability and competitiveness within leagues. No more 60 point destruction games. Games would be a lot more entertaining with more evenly matched teams. Teams would spend the appropriate amount of money for their level because they wouldn't all be trying to follow a fantasy of getting into a higher level.

The current system is killing midrange teams. It is like watching a car race where a bunch of drivers in Yugo's are burning out their engines with their pedal to the floor, trying to keep up with Porsches.

I honestly think separating the top from the middle will reinvigorate the middle tier allowing them to play competitive games and compete for championships as medium sized frogs in medium sized ponds.

---

I am not arguing with your reasoning. But to me if there is major shrinkage in the number of viable college teams, it will shrink the available players who can be recruited by the Pros.
Right now there is a very large pool of potential Pro players. Many come out of Podunk Universities.
What happens when that large pool dries up to just 32 or 36 teams.
Remember that A. Rodgers was recruited by Cal of a J.C. because no other school wanted to take a chance on him.
Take away Cal and there would have been no A. Rodgers.
Take away Cal and that would likely dry up J.C. football.
Which schools (4-year or J.C. would be willing to spend money to keep alive College Football if that school has no hope of making its college football program economically feasible.)

I see Pro Football sowing the seeds of its own destruction in the long run.

---

I think the idea here is that the smaller schools would still recruit those players and give them chances, and if they blew up (like Rodgers) then the top league would get them in the transfer portal.

Heck, star NFL players still got drafted from the I-AA / FCS ranks in the old days too (Jerry Rice, Steve McNair, etc.). The NFL will find their talent wherever it is.

---

GivemTheAxe said:

---

BearlyCareAnymore said:

---

golden sloth said:

---

I do wonder what the final end game is for conference realignment is. I can't help but imagine that both the Big 10 and SEC continue to gobble up the final 8 - 12 big name properties and markets, then implement a system maximizing the SEC and Big 10 payouts and control with only token participation from the remaining conferences and schools. Obviously, the ACC and Big 12 drop to be mid-major level (similar to the Pac).

For the Big 10, I think they eventually expand to a total of 24 schools with four divisions of (6) schools each. In football, you'd play everyone in your division every year and play one school from the other divisions. I think they'd also schedule an SEC - Big 10 challenge where you play two games against the other conference every year (one home, one away). That is ten SEC/Big 10 opponents every season, with two cupcake home games. Each school would have 7 home game and 5 away games. That makes sense to me.

As for the divisions, I'd imagine it would be something along the lines of:

Div 1:
1. Penn State
2. Maryland
3. Rutgers
4. North Carolina
5. Miami
6. TBD

TBD: One of Clemson, Florida State, Virginia, Georgia Tech
They could also take two of the TBDs and push Penn State to Div 2 and Northwestern to Div 3.

Div 2:
1. Ohio State
2. Michigan
3. Michigan State
4. Purdue
5. Indiana
6. Northwestern (NW could easily switch will Illinois if needed)

Div 3:
1. Illinois
2. Wisconsin
3. Minnesota
4. Iowa
5. Nebraska
6. TBD

TBD: One of Kansas, Utah, Colorado

Div 4:
1. USC
2. UCLA
3. Washington
4. Oregon
5. TBD
6. TBD

TBD: Two of Cal, Stanford, Arizona, Arizona St, Utah

This assumes, Notre Dame remains independent. If they do, they can choose their division taking either a TBD spot, or moving Northwestern to Division 3. Also assumes the Big 10 can't poach from the SEC.

---

We are hanging on to a system that no longer works or makes any sense. I do think it is going to evolve to something that makes sense, but right now it is doing so in a haphazard manner that is taking too long.

First of all, let's get acceptance that College football and men's basketball are professional sports leagues now. Second of all, they are two different professional sports leagues. There is really no reason that schools in the same football conference need to also be in the same basketball conference.

College football and basketball are fundamentally different business models. Football is hell expensive. You need 5 times the number of quality players to field a competitive football team than you need in basketball, meaning a lower level team can't get lucky with one or two guys and compete. There is more money making potential in football. Football is more about a whole system of strength and conditioning to develop bodies. A 240 lb player cannot just outskill a 300lb player. As a result, a school like St. Mary's can compete in basketball where even if they wanted to they have no chance to compete in football.

Just discussing football because I think it is more black and white. There are not 40, 50, 60 teams that are financially viable. Pro sports leagues in the US have pretty well settled in around 30 teams, I think there is a good reason for this. Get much beyond that and you spread the product too thin. Also, the disparity between the haves and the have nots is just too great.

The college football organization has been blown up. The NCAA was barely a business organization and it was terrible at it. The SEC and the Big 10 are the de facto major leagues here. They need to join together with business sponsorship and form a league that is an actual private business not related to school administrations or state governments. They need to have a league of 32 or 36 teams. They have the management invite teams to apply and then pick the teams based on long term financial viability and that is it. They form a self contained league and they do not play anybody else. Structure the league similar to the NFL. Similar schedules. Similar playoffs so you don't have this idiotic "I lost two games now I'm out" BS. And It will be best for all concerned. Cut off the dreams of the teams that can't accept that they can never compete so they stop being idiots with their money. Then out of those teams you'll see another league - cheaper to run because they can't afford more - that will form out of the next 32 or 36 teams.

This would also bring more stability with the personnel. The top league will barely recruit high school players because they are too risky and be subject to leaving anyway. They will take only the very cream of the crop out of high school and otherwise hire guys who have proven themselves in the lower leagues. The lower leagues would be made up of young players and experienced players who can't make it in the top leagues.

There would be a lot more stability and competitiveness within leagues. No more 60 point destruction games. Games would be a lot more entertaining with more evenly matched teams. Teams would spend the appropriate amount of money for their level because they wouldn't all be trying to follow a fantasy of getting into a higher level.

The current system is killing midrange teams. It is like watching a car race where a bunch of drivers in Yugo's are burning out their engines with their pedal to the floor, trying to keep up with Porsches.

I honestly think separating the top from the middle will reinvigorate the middle tier allowing them to play competitive games and compete for championships as medium sized frogs in medium sized ponds.

---

I am not arguing with your reasoning. But to me if there is major shrinkage in the number of viable college teams, it will shrink the available players who can be recruited by the Pros.
Right now there is a very large pool of potential Pro players. Many come out of Podunk Universities.
What happens when that large pool dries up to just 32 or 36 teams.
Remember that A. Rodgers was recruited by Cal of a J.C. because no other school wanted to take a chance on him.
Take away Cal and there would have been no A. Rodgers.
Take away Cal and that would likely dry up J.C. football.
Which schools (4-year or J.C. would be willing to spend money to keep alive College Football if that school has no hope of making its college football program economically feasible.)

I see Pro Football sowing the seeds of its own destruction in the long run.

---