Perhaps it's being a traditionalist, but a conference of 10 and no more than 12
teams allows a fan to have some familiarity with each team to a greater or lesser extent. The greater the number of teams the less the average fan can relate to the opponent. It means something when Cal beats SC, Furd, UCLA. It means less when they beat WSU or ASU, although still meaningful. Now we have added Col and Ut and the avid fan will have to become somewhat conversant with those squads.

Part of being a fan of college football is knowing something about the opponent, the opponent's stars and the opponent's coach. There is onlly so much time to devote to football. We work, we have families and we have our own special projects, hobbys and sport activities. As much as we want to be part of the Cal family and take real pleasure in its successes, there is only so much one person can undertake. Certainly, if you're wealthy, retired and have the wherewithal you can appreciate 16 team conferences and devote as much time as you wish. The rest of us cannot.

The consolidation into conferences is all about money. The funds come from television and the huge revenue streams that brings. There is certain breakdown of the traditional concept of college football with consolidation. Teams will become also rans quickly. They will be lost in the mass of major teams which dominate the market. Baseball, hockey and even the NBA have suffered with expansion and superconferences are the collegiate counterpart to expansion. There should be a limit to the number of teams in a conference. I thought 10 was it, but I will accept 12 and recognize that the Buffaloes and the Utes can make a significant contribution to the Pac10 and not just money. At least, they are geographically close and many California kids attend these schools. But to go to 16 teams to me is simply mindboggling.

I was just thinking, as a consequence to the placement of Cal and Stanford in the North Division and the CA school compromise, Cal and Stanford will be guaranteed to play each of the Pac-8 schools every year. Not sure if this was pointed out in the past, but thought it was worth noting.

If the Pac ends up going to 16, the link b/w the two dvisions will be pretty tenuous. Maybe 2 crossover games per team per year, and the division winners meeting in the post season. The casual Cal fan wouldn't be losing out by not knowing much about teams in the other division of the Pac-16.

Superconferences don't make sense to me. Seems like two conferences whose winners play each other at the end of the season.

Superconferences = traditional conferences with an alliance agreement. A Pac-16 almost assuredly means the return of the Pac-8 and we would then play every team in our division every year. If anything, I would think 12 team conferences is the worst of all worlds.

BGolden;545308 said:

---

Superconferences don't make sense to me. Seems like two conferences whose winners play each other at the end of the season.

---

EXACTLY.

It's the workaround for a playoff system, get it?

OaktownBear;545318 said:

---

Superconferences = traditional conferences with an alliance agreement. A Pac-16 almost assuredly means the return of the Pac-8 and we would then play every team in our division every year. If anything, I would think 12 team conferences is the worst of all worlds.

---

Agreed, 16 team conferences with two 8-team groups within a conference has the potential to be an improvement - IF the two 8-team groups are geographically contiguous and either preserve existing rivalries or create logical new ones.

A hypothetical Pac-16 would do that, at least on one side (the side Cal is on, thankfully). But with some of the rumors out there like Texas to the Big 10 or ACC, Kansas to the Pac-12 or Big East, etc. I don't think all the super-conferences that could come out of this process are going to make sense, except from a TV/$$$/politics perspective.

Which I guess is what really matters, but college FB as we know it is dying a little every day this freakshow goes on.

I have no idea why they want 16 Team Conferences.

BGolden;545308 said:

---

Superconferences don't make sense to me. Seems like two conferences whose winners play each other at the end of the season.

---

Very true. It's kind of a 2 conference alliance for TV purposes and 'OOC' scheduling. There really isn't any other way divide a 16 team conference either. Pac 16 might even benefit from having two groups that fall into something that can easily be divided into two. If the Big Ten goes to 16, there will not an easy way to do it without messing everything up. SEC, the same story - though maybe not as badly - there are still traditional games, games that have been played yearly since 1932 or longer, that will not last.

If super conferences are a way to get to a playoff - and conference champions get a bid automatically, maybe this notion of padding the OOC schedule with cupcakes will go away. Would a 10 game conference schedule to get more cross division games be possible in that case? I know it's a free payday for the teams with the 4 home games, but it's a mockery.

The other option is to mix everyone up to somehow come up with non-geographical divisions. The travel will be bad for the Pac and it will be bad for the ACC, and even could be bad for the BT (SEC seems pretty compact). It's hard to use the WAC as a example because they never had a huge following, but it seemed they broke apart because none of the 16 schools had any kind of strong repeating relationship to the other schools based on how they scheduled - it's much better to keep some relationships intact and go with the 2 mostly separate division models than to mix it up.

I like where the p12 sits now (unlike 2 years ago), no need to do anything, unless a response to something big going on elsewhere. I actually hope the B12 can figure it sh!% out and we can reap the benefits of the TV contract through 2023. Tweak the BCS to have a plus one maybe? But if the situation dictates, the pac need to act swiftly to get to 16 with the right schools. SEC and BT looking to expand mostly in the east would really help.

EchoOfSilence;545320 said:

---

EXACTLY.

It's the workaround for a playoff system, get it?

---

Then I guess it should be 8 conferences with 15 teams.

16 teams screws up the math. :headbang

drunkoski;545333 said:

---

only downside i see is that winning the conference will be very very difficult, but it's not as though we've done it a lot in 50 years anyway.

---

But it will mean more.... and while right now it would seem silly to hang a 'Pac 12 North Football Champions' banner somewhere, but if that division were to include UCLA and USC, I'd be damn proud to have one. Look at all these pro teams that hang things like AL West or NL West champions on their roofs.

We really do need to get to the Rose Bowl soon because I don't see it lasting another 50 years in this current form (which is even watered down since the BCS).

Makes sense if there are two automatic BCS bids

Tedhead03;545302 said:

---

I was just thinking, as a consequence to the placement of Cal and Stanford in the North Division and the CA school compromise, Cal and Stanford will be guaranteed to play each of the Pac-8 schools every year. Not sure if this was pointed out in the past, but thought it was worth noting.

---

Right. We're pretty much guaranteed to have the toughest schedule in the NCAA every year.

Cal88;545360 said:

---

Right. We're pretty much guaranteed to have the toughest schedule in the NCAA every year.

---

First off, Stanford will on average have a much harder schedule than Cal due to the P12 alignment. Duh!

Secondly, we are essentially trading Az last year for Utah this year. I don't see that as harder. The SEC despite, all their BS OOC schedules, essentially has the same strength of schedule as last year. So unless you say we played one of the tougher schedules in the NCAA last year, then we don't have the toughest schedule in the NCAA this year or in the future. Pac 12 northwest just has a slightly easier schedule in that they miss one LA school every year.

Given that I like Cal football and we haven't won the conference in my lifetime, and I'll like it for years to come, I'd rather play teams that we all like playing than complain about an extra LA game that might hurt us, but probably wont.

Everyone keeps saying that being in the same conference as UCLA and USC (or playing them every year) is some kind of permanent handicap, despite one of those programs completely being in the tank and the other about to feel the effects of some seriously crippling penalties. Am I missing something?

510Bear;545375 said:

---

Everyone keeps saying that being in the same conference as UCLA and USC (or playing them every year) is some kind of permanent handicap, despite one of those programs completely being in the tank and the other about to feel the effects of some seriously crippling penalties. Am I missing something?

---

Good point. USC will have at least a few year hangover from the schollie reductions, depending on how they manage their rosters. I'd say at least a year past the actual reductions. I'm scared about UCLA if they ever wake up, fire RN and actually pay a coach. Being one of the only P10 schools to break even, they will have a surplus from the new TV contract. Of course why would a decent coach want to head to UCLA with all their admission problems in recruiting?

I am assuming that will be the case......

510Bear;545375 said:

---

Everyone keeps saying that being in the same conference as UCLA and USC (or playing them every year) is some kind of permanent handicap, despite one of those programs completely being in the tank and the other about to feel the effects of some seriously crippling penalties. Am I missing something?

---

Also who really thinks that Stanford and Oregon are going to remain pre-season top ten teams? I don't

While a 16 team super-conference doesn't appeal to me, it does have the potential of whittling away at the BCS or, at least, verifying that the top teams play in championship games.

If there is a playoff in the superconf., then the two best of that conference will have played one another and there will be a result. If you have four superconf., then the top four will emerge and there can be little argument over who is best. The test is thereafter. Which of the four will play each other for the championship. Perhaps it will lead to a playoff of two games. It will be hard, however, to convince university presidents to allow teams to exceed 14 games in a season in order to crown a winner. Thus, a reduction of games during the season might result if a championship is to be offered.

Given the number of games other sports play and the fact that most other sports play midweek games, and the fact that FCS schools have a playoff, I call BS on the ol' we don't want to lengthen the season because of academics argument. Especially since its hard to continue to say you won't play more games when they just added a game on the schedule a few years ago.

The bottom line is that those with money and power think that the BCS + Bowls maintains their money and power. When those with money and power decide that a playoff will give them more money and power, we will get a playoff.

6bear6;545408 said:

---

While a 16 team super-conference doesn't appeal to me, it does have the potential of whittling away at the BCS or, at least, verifying that the top teams play in championship games.

If there is a playoff in the superconf., then the two best of that conference will have played one another and there will be a result. If you have four superconf., then the top four will emerge and there can be little argument over who is best. The test is thereafter. Which of the four will play each other for the championship. Perhaps it will lead to a playoff of two games. It will be hard, however, to convince university presidents to allow teams to exceed 14 games in a season in order to crown a winner. Thus, a reduction of games during the season might result if a championship is to be offered.

---

What is more likely to happen is that the winner and loser are in-that gives you 8 BCS slots. Otherwise a super conference would be a negative and there would be endless arguments over parity of conferences. This is a way of spreading the wealth and also keeping independents and mid majors out. What happens after that is anyone's guess.

OaktownBear;545419 said:

---

Given the number of games other sports play and the fact that most other sports play midweek games, and the fact that FCS schools have a playoff, I call BS on the ol' we don't want to lengthen the season because of academics argument. Especially since its hard to continue to say you won't play more games when they just added a game on the schedule a few years ago.

---

One thing to note is that FCS schools play 11 game schedules, and I don't think any have a CCG (I could be wrong on that one). So they are at a max of 15 games.

With a CCG and a bowl game, a FBS schools play 14 games.

I don't think that there would be any case for opposing a +1 type game stemming from the # of games (the format ....that's a different issue). But getting into longer post seasons is going to be hard, and I do agree with limiting the season at some point. I believe that a more inclusive playoff would likely come at the expense of a week of the regularly scheduled season or the CCG's. Still not a huge fan of CCG's since they mean a league is too big for a round robin - if we could have more than four 8 to 10 team leagues that feed a playoff that replaces the CCG, that would be ideal. But really how do you make conference smaller.... by making them bigger and dividing by two!

Definitely would not want the trade off for an extra playoff round and an 11 game regular season - regular season is great, and all teams get to play. The final games of a playoff will be huge ratings draws, but would a limited number of early round games really make more money than all schools in FBS playing an extra game with home crowds and conference TV money?

510Bear;545375 said:

---

Everyone keeps saying that being in the same conference as UCLA and USC (or playing them every year) is some kind of permanent handicap, despite one of those programs completely being in the tank and the other about to feel the effects of some seriously crippling penalties. Am I missing something?

---

In the long term, it probably is a slight handicap. Who is likely to have the better record over the next 20-30 years? USC/UCLA or some combination of Arizona, ASU, Colorado, and Utah? But of course in any given season it can vary greatly.

drunkoski;545299 said:

---

go to 16 and our conference schedule will look more like it did when it was teh pac-8 than it did last year. and on top of that we'd get the occasional trip to oklahoma or texas. seems like a win win to me even if you exclude the $$$$.

---

Yeah, I think it is CLEAR that a 16 team "super conference" would be far better, using 6bear6's reasoning, than the 12 team conference.

6bear6;545408 said:

---

While a 16 team super-conference doesn't appeal to me, it does have the potential of whittling away at the BCS or, at least, verifying that the top teams play in championship games.

If there is a playoff in the superconf., then the two best of that conference will have played one another and there will be a result. If you have four superconf., then the top four will emerge and there can be little argument over who is best. The test is thereafter. Which of the four will play each other for the championship. Perhaps it will lead to a playoff of two games. It will be hard, however, to convince university presidents to allow teams to exceed 14 games in a season in order to crown a winner. Thus, a reduction of games during the season might result if a championship is to be offered.

---

Winner of the Pac-16 plays winner of the Big-16 in the Rose Bowl on New Years Day. Tradition is somewhat restored. Winner of the SEC plays winner of the Big East/ACC (or just highest rated team outside of the three super conferences) in the Orange Bowl. The two winners play in the +1 for the National Championship--my preference would be to have it in New Orleans for its central location.

calumnus;545675 said:

---

Winner of the Pac-16 plays winner of the Big-16 in the Rose Bowl on New Years Day. Tradition is somewhat restored. Winner of the SEC plays winner of the Big East/ACC (or just highest rated team outside of the three super conferences) in the Orange Bowl. The two winners play in the +1 for the National Championship--my preference would be to have it in New Orleans for its central location.

---

I bet it'd go to the new Cowboys Stadium. MUCH more Central and a state of the art facility. Maybe also the Cardinals stadium in Arizona.

By the way, this AP article is the best summary I've seen so far of everything that's happened and might happen (in case anyone's confused about any part of it). I sent it to a bunch of people.

BGolden;545308 said:

---

Superconferences don't make sense to me. Seems like two conferences whose winners play each other at the end of the season.

---

I agree. I think that any more than twelve teams in a conference is too much.

Don't worry, no one will make a move until the SEC makes a move.

They started this whole 12 team + CCG stuff in the first place. If they decide 16 is better, then everybody else will follow.

Until then, kick back and enjoy the chaos.