(11-11-2013 09:59 AM)Native Georgian Wrote:  

(11-11-2013 09:44 AM)bullet Wrote:  San Diego State deserves in the WAC before Nevada and Wyoming.

I view them as equal, as far as "deserving" the chance to compete in athletics is concerned...

Quote:if you include Air Force, you've got to find a place for Army and Navy.

True.

Quote:Personally I would rather see them drop down and not distract from their mission by trying to recruit football players.

I have felt conflicted about that for a long time. Lately I am beginning to share this ^ view, however. College football (at the FBS level) has become so quasi-professional, that it makes less and less sense for the academies to participate in it. That's not the same thing as saying that they Can't compete, because obviously they can. But should they? A question to think about going forward...

They could just as well participate in the Patriot League in football and go back to playing the Ivies. Air Force could go to the Big Sky.

Given the increased number of women in the academy and shrinking armed forces, should you really put a priority on filling out an 85 man FBS roster? While cadets being in good shape is important, whether they can play football should not be an important criteria.

(11-11-2013 10:13 AM)bigblueblindness Wrote:  I think it is worth writing if you can show that the smaller groupings and regional importance would lead to more interest, which leads to more revenue, which results in potential funding for the academic mission of the school. Show how it will benefit your professor, and it will be golden.

On an SEC note, you should have LSU in the SEC and put out South Carolina. Taking LSU away from the traditional SEC teams would be like taking Ohio State or Michigan out of the B1G.

True, but it does add some competitive balance to his proposal and there is a surplus of teams in the east.

Not in favor. If 80 is the magic number, either...

Four 20 team conferences, each with 2 divisions, and the divisions could operate as mini-conferences under a single banner

OR

Five 16 team conferences, each with 2 divisions.

The latter would be easier bc the P5 would not be cannibalizing each other and could infill with geographically sensible adds.

The former would require someone (B12 or ACC) to be broken up and reallocated.

Joey,
I think your idea could be solid overall if the overriding assumption is to pull this off, the majority of the schools agree to cede all of their media rights in order to put one entity in charge of TV contracts for all, i.e. pursue a professional sports league model. Whether it would be the NCAA or a newly created body to govern everything is immaterial. The crux is that conferences die completely and they are "replaced" by divisions. In reality, these divisions would be just like the conference wrt affiliations. Otherwise, they are merely ways to group schools.

What would make your idea seductive would be to allow the "league" to make different affiliations depending upon the sport being played. There would be no reason why you couldn't change the CBB divisions slightly in favor of maximizing ratings. If baseball ever takes off, then you'd have even different divisions in that situation. CFB is the one sport with the most tradition and would provide the primary baseline alignment and the other sports could be adjusted based on the "original division".

Yes, I'm in favor of the OP.

But with 80 schools, I would think SMU would fit in somewhere.

That could happen, but you would still only have one champion from each of the P5.

Re: OP

No, no, and no. Even though it would help my school a lot, it would create a lot more problems then it would solve. How many teams? What regions? Which rivalries get split up? 20 years from now when a new FBS power like Boise, UCF, or USF comes along, how are they treated? Do we explode everything and start again?

Also, the idea of freedom of association is pretty central to capitalism and democracy.

(11-11-2013 11:55 AM)Captain Bearcat Wrote:  Re: OP

No, no, and no. Even though it would help my school a lot, it would create a lot more problems then it would solve. How many teams? What regions? Which rivalries get split up? 20 years from now when a new FBS power like Boise, UCF, or USF comes along, how are they treated? Do we explode everything and start again?

Also, the idea of freedom of association is pretty central to capitalism and democracy.

That's not a valid analogy for the universities. The vast majority are stated own institutions and are thus extensions of the state governments.

Call it a hunch, but the state wants their flagship schools associating with other flagship schools and not local lower level schools. Remember, this is academia and you are who you associate with.

Appreciate the help fellas... Got the answers I've pretty much expected on this one...

Closing this for now...