(01-29-2014 12:59 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(01-29-2014 12:50 PM)TripleA Wrote:  

(01-29-2014 12:42 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(01-29-2014 12:36 PM)TripleA Wrote:  I think the rankings are interesting, and represent a lot of effort, which I appreciate. But I also think there are too many variables in each conference's situation, and each school's situation, to ever give a ranking of schools that has any true value in predicting what schools might eventually move from one conference to the next.

Even without rankings, most of us can produce a reasonable list of schools that might get a look from each conference. Beyond that initial screening, the deciding factors can be as esoteric as relationships between administrators, size of fan base in a specific location, or any number of other factors.

Just too hard to categorize into one ranked list.

Lists and extraneous factors are essential for one reason only. They provide a non personal explanation for the decisions that will be made.

To some extent, this is true. But as soon as you use any set of criteria to produce a listing of schools, in a one-size-fits-all ranking, it becomes arbitrary, to a great extent.

Decisive factors differ from conference to conference. We can all make a list of reasons that schools are chosen, and we can all make a list of schools that might be attractive, by conference. Then, we can apply reasoning as to which ones are more of a factor, or higher on the list, than others.

But in the end, what we're really trying to answer is, "Which schools will be selected before others?" I submit that the factors vary by conference, and are too many, and too varied, to ever compile a list that can be helpful, beyond just common sense, that most who follow realignment could apply, anyway.

I totally agree. My supposition was that in the end for the sake of future relationships, the standing of presidents and AD's that are in the fraternity but not selected, that the only true purpose of the list is to provide cover for the decisions made for all involved. Those not chosen can point to the list and say if we had done thus and such or improved this or that we would have likely been accepted and the conference doing the selecting merely presents a list that backs up their choices and that becomes a form of plausible deniability.

That makes sense to me.

(01-29-2014 02:54 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(01-29-2014 02:48 PM)ken d Wrote:  

(01-29-2014 02:10 PM)HuskyU Wrote:  

(01-29-2014 01:59 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(01-29-2014 01:40 PM)ken d Wrote:  They could, but I can't see many college presidents kicking another member school out of the fraternity because they don't win enough or have stadiums that don't measure up. It's just unseemly. I accept that some schools are just going to be grandfathered in for that reason. Besides, some schools add value to their conference by being reliable winners and others by being reliable losers.

It's just my opinion but this will end at 70 to 72 teams. The networks and conferences know where the investment cutoff is (between position 71 & 72 of athletic spending). If they reach that point or close to it there will be little legal wiggle room for a complaint based upon that criteria. Because of that if the networks don't make it losing proposition the conferences will add for niche markets and ease of division and scheduling , but mostly to avoid legal entanglement. Plus they are all going to need some not quite top notch schools to play that count as conference wins.

B.Y.U., Connecticut, South Florida, Central Florida, Cincinnati and Temple all slide in with that kind of cut off. The other spot could go to a market add slightly below the cut off, or based upon geography. But something like that I believe will eventually make the field either 4 x 18 or 3 x 18 & one 16 team conference (likely the PAC).

The advantages logistically and financially for minor sports for a 6 team regional division are pretty compelling when the conferences start to get spread out. Networks like wild cards because it keeps more fan bases energized deeper into the season than just having divisional champions, and it sometimes permits that national brand having a bad year to sneak into the mix and boost ratings. Three division champions and a best at large playing it off for the conference championship becomes the inclusive extra round of conference playoffs the fans are already clamoring for. 4 conference champions playing it off for the National Championship will keep all 4 regions of the country watching through the semis. The networks will love that.

If we do move to a field of 72 I do not look for more than maybe 1 G5 game per P5 team, if that. The inclusion of the extra 7 teams will have to suffice for one of the spots that once belonged to G5 opponents and that for many will be a drawback.

Yes, I'm biased because 72 most likely includes UCONN, but here's what I like about it:

With 72 teams, you can have 4 18 team conferences. Each conference has 3 pods of 6. Each conference then has their own mini playoff at the end of the conference season, where the first place pod teams plus the overall best second place team participate.

That means you have 4 teams from each of the 4 conferences. Basically, the first 2 rounds of a 16 team playoff are your conference semi-finals and championship game.

This then leaves the Final 4 as the Conference Champion in each of the 4 conferences.

I like the theory, but in practice conference invites don't happen because we would like to see the beautiful symmetry of a logical 16 team playoff. Unless we make someone king (and in the interest of full disclosure, I would accept the position if offered), with the power to force conferences to take schools they might not want otherwise, the end result is just going to be more messy.

It would be if the conferences were in control, but they are not, the networks are. If they will pay for someone's inclusion it will likely happen. If they don't it never will. All the conferences have offered are some loose guidelines on who might be acceptable. Going to 68, 70, or 72 would all be possible. I don't think there will be a huge need for perfect symmetry, but 1 or 2 4 x 4 and 2 or 3, 3 x 6's still get it done without disrupting an ultimate internal playoff, or the structure for the finals.
So far there has been one universal in all of this mess. Nobody gets invited to a conference unless somebody besides the conference is paying for it. And therein lies the power of the networks to shape the structure.

I pretty much agree with this. As Frank and others point out, the BCS has added a net 2 schools since its inception in 1996. The appeal of the P5 conferences to TV networks (powered by a few elites at the top) allows them to take advantage of the situation.

The objective of the P5 remains consolidation of as much power and money as possible. That means there is no reason to add more members, unless somehow, new adds increase money or power, or the TV networks (particularly ESPN) have some other compelling reason to do so.

Minus those incentives, I don't think much is going to change. The obvious place for at least 2 adds seems to be the B12, due simply to their size, but the incentive to do so isn't obvious, unless having a CCG means something. I don't think the B12 can add any P5 schools, so that's an opportunity for perhaps 2 G5 schools. Beyond that, I think it's about to come to an end.

Of course, I also said that right before Rutgers and Maryland were announced to the B1G, lol.

College sports, and football in particular, are part of an entertainment market. Like all markets, they tend toward an equilibrium in which there is no more value to be added by more change. It's beginning to feel like we're close to that with the P5.

That equilibrium is no doubt going to be something short of whatever optimal solution each fan/school/conference was hoping for. But getting those last few crumbs isn't going to be worth the cost or effort. Even if some network is still willing to throw a few more bucks at the schools, at some point presidents have to say what's the point. If the end result of getting those last few dollars is that you will give an already overpaid coach another raise, or put more sumptuous furniture in the player's lounge, it's just not worth it.

We may not be quite done, but we're close, at least in my opinion.