To further argue (from the TWEET thread) that a 16-school conference with two 8-school four 4-school divisions would absolutely be great for college football, I found somebody who agrees, and he decided to write it up.

Could Big Ten Expansion Create the First College Football Playoff

Man, that's awesome if that's what Delany has in mind. Now, I wonder what his buddies on the Pacific are planning...

(04-30-2010 03:36 PM)ecuacc4ever Wrote:  To further argue (from the TWEET thread) that a 16-school conference with two 8-school four 4-school divisions would absolutely be great for college football, I found somebody who agrees, and he decided to write it up.

Could Big Ten Expansion Create the First College Football Playoff

Man, that's awesome if that's what Delany has in mind. Now, I wonder what his buddies on the Pacific are planning...

It's definitely a cool idea in theory. The issue is that this would require a fairly significant change in NCAA rules. Now, maybe other conferences will be on board with it if they want the flexibility to go up to 16 teams, too, but it wouldn't be possible under the current rules.

Put 8 schools in a "Division", satisfying the 6-schools-per-division rule, then break those 8 into 4-school "pods". I don't see how that would require a rules change. Now, staging a 2-round playoff, I have no idea about those legalities.

(04-30-2010 03:48 PM)ecuacc4ever Wrote:  Put 8 schools in a "Division", satisfying the 6-schools-per-division rule, then break those 8 into 4-school "pods". I don't see how that would require a rules change. Now, staging a 2-round playoff, I have no idea about those legalities.

Right - it's the 2-round playoff that wouldn't work under current rules. Rotating pods into 8-team divisions does work, though.

IMHO, the one thing CUSA does right is to play the football conference championship at the home of the team with the best conference record. Why let some other city get that $$$?...

(04-30-2010 03:56 PM)Den Wrote:  IMHO, the one thing CUSA does right is to play the football conference championship at the home of the team with the best conference record. Why let some other city get that $$$?...

Ummm... those cities such as Atlanta and Dallas pay a TON of money to the SEC and Big XII, respectively, to host those games. At the same time, conference championship games are NOT about the fans. They are vehicles to get maximum sponsorships and sell corporate suites that exist in NFL stadiums that are neutral sites.

I get all that, but in CUSA's case, IMHO, they got it right. Dang if I know why I brought that to the BE board - 1000 pardons Tank sir...

(04-30-2010 03:36 PM)ecuacc4ever Wrote:  To further argue (from the TWEET thread) that a 16-school conference with two 8-school four 4-school divisions would absolutely be great for college football, I found somebody who agrees, and he decided to write it up.

Could Big Ten Expansion Create the First College Football Playoff

Man, that's awesome if that's what Delany has in mind. Now, I wonder what his buddies on the Pacific are planning...

Regarding your suggestion about the PAC10- For it to work as well for another conference, presuming that the B10 goes to 16 and one of those teams is NE, the conference would need at least 4 “premium” programs to anchor each division. Anything more or less than 4 (or 8 or 12 exactly- but unlikely so) leaves the divisions unbalanced. With the rumored structure, the B10 has the perfect anchors in OSU, UM, PennSt. and UNE. Picture a two-round playoff inclusive of those four teams (which I suspect would a common occurrence)- now that would draw high national ratings.

Well - and this is hypothetical stuff here...

Texas, Colorado, Southern Cal, Oregon would qualify as perfect "anchors".

I think this would be a terrible idea. One of the things that separates college football from most other sports is the championship isn't demeaned by giving too many teams a chance of it in the playoffs. No way should 1 out of 4 teams still have a chance after the regular season is finished.

I think the only way for the Big 10 to get a 4 team championship to work is if the SEC also asks to have a 4 game championship. ABC/ESPN and CBS would be all over this. That in itself would make a sh1tload of money for each conference and would further seperate the SEC and Big 10 from the rest of the pack when it comes to money.

You guys know we had pods in the WAC and old rivals got left out playing each other, poof the MWC is born. There was never semi finals. BYU, Utah, New Mexico were pissed that some years there pod would be in the opposite div. of the Air Force, Wyoming, Colorado St. pod which basically made it like they were in different conferences.

I think the Big 10 schools might have the same thoughts if its 4 pods of 4.

(04-30-2010 09:27 PM)Fresno St. Alum Wrote:  You guys know we had pods in the WAC and old rivals got left out playing each other, poof the MWC is born. There was never semi finals. BYU, Utah, New Mexico were pissed that some years there pod would be in the opposite div. of the Air Force, Wyoming, Colorado St. pod which basically made it like they were in different conferences.

I think the Big 10 schools might have the same thoughts if its 4 pods of 4.

Fresno Alum--

Some major differences with the WAC/16. For one thing, BYU and Air Force were not making unholy gobs of money every year. For another, the weakest teams in the WAC/16 were a whole lot worse than the weakest teams in the purported Big Ten/16. For another, the geography would be much, much tighter in Delany's world than it was in the WAC. But the main thing, of course, is the money. If the WAC/16 had been depositing the kind of checks the Big Ten/16 would be (will be?), you could have put BYU in the Rice/Tulsa pod, or the San Jose/Fresno pod, and they would've accepted it. Wouldn't have been their ideal choice, but they would've accepted it in exchange for $20m (and counting) a year.

(04-30-2010 04:08 PM)Den Wrote:  I get all that, but in CUSA's case, IMHO, they got it right. Dang if I know why I brought that to the BE board - 1000 pardons Tank sir...

cusa only did it that way because no one would travel to a neutral site game and there wouldnt be nearly enough local interest to justify it... the crowd would be extreemely empty

(04-30-2010 09:47 PM)Native Georgian Wrote:  

(04-30-2010 09:27 PM)Fresno St. Alum Wrote:  You guys know we had pods in the WAC and old rivals got left out playing each other, poof the MWC is born. There was never semi finals. BYU, Utah, New Mexico were pissed that some years there pod would be in the opposite div. of the Air Force, Wyoming, Colorado St. pod which basically made it like they were in different conferences.

I think the Big 10 schools might have the same thoughts if its 4 pods of 4.

Fresno Alum--

Some major differences with the WAC/16. For one thing, BYU and Air Force were not making unholy gobs of money every year. For another, the weakest teams in the WAC/16 were a whole lot worse than the weakest teams in the purported Big Ten/16. For another, the geography would be much, much tighter in Delany's world than it was in the WAC. But the main thing, of course, is the money. If the WAC/16 had been depositing the kind of checks the Big Ten/16 would be (will be?), you could have put BYU in the Rice/Tulsa pod, or the San Jose/Fresno pod, and they would've accepted it. Wouldn't have been their ideal choice, but they would've accepted it in exchange for $20m (and counting) a year.

Money does solve a lot of problems, but going from 22 to say 25 mill a year may not be enough that the B10 schools would be pleased with 16 and have pods.

(04-30-2010 10:03 PM)BullsBEAST Wrote:  cusa only did it that way because no one would travel to a neutral site game and there wouldnt be nearly enough local interest to justify it... the crowd would be extreemely empty

Precisely.

(04-30-2010 08:26 PM)ecuacc4ever Wrote:  Well - and this is hypothetical stuff here...

Texas, Colorado, Southern Cal, Oregon would qualify as perfect "anchors".

Anchors, well... perhaps. But I would hardly compare Oregon or Colorado to Ohio State, Michigan, Penn State or Nebraska.

Keep in mind that the B10 has been the biggest opponent of a "plus one" BCS playoff championship game, and has until now been content not to have a conference championship game. Seems far fetched to think they would push the envelope.

(04-30-2010 10:03 PM)BullsBEAST Wrote:  cusa only did it that way because no one would travel to a neutral site game and there wouldnt be nearly enough local interest to justify it... the crowd would be extreemely empty

That's the same reason the ACC should consider doing the same thing.
CJ

Now we know why the Big 11 has been against a play-off for so long. It wasn't because of the Rose Bowl connections. It's because the greedy ba$tards want to keep the money for themselves.
CJ