Just thinking out loud here. Humor the idea...I got it from the 4x20 thread.

Some calling for a division of 65 or so, what about the following:

-8x10 Geographical conferences - Split into 2 divisions of 5.
-Play all 4 in your divison, plus 3 in opposite.
-5 OOC games due to the splitting of larger conferences, schools are more free to link up with old rivals and conference mates.
-Conference champion goes to 8 team playoff

Pros:

-G5 schools with large student body and alumni bases see increased fan interest and viewership, contributing to the entire pie. Benefit from drawing those who are currently disinterested because the way the sport is set up. May not even be that big of a drag on $$$.

-A little company at the bottom benefits those P5 programs that would be sent to the dark ages in a league of 65. The top G5 actually get to contribute to the quality.

- It's actually fair. What's a competition if you are playing from the red tees when the school down the road has to play from the gold?

-10 team geographic conference maximizes regional fan interest. Regional rivalries are restored, OOC allows for other rivalries to continue. It's a win-win.

-Playoff fan interest maxamized- see SE champ take on the NE champ. All of the SE/NE teams will be following their champ.

- Easier travel for both fans and schools.

- Benefits academia for the 66-80 teams by association.
Cons:


-OOC is meaningless. Only played for practice and fan interest (what's wrong with that though??).

- Majority of P5 schools would be against this- (okay so let's close the thread here right?)

- Splits up some rivalries - but OOC games help.

- the extra 15 schools could drag down money, but who's to say their fan interest and or regional interest doesn't make up for it?

- Schools like UCF and ECU piss off UF and UNC by recruiting on an even playing field and drawing in top recruits? Okay, I HAD to throw that one in there.


I mean think about it. There's only so many facility upgrades you can buy, there's only so much frivolous spending to do, there's only so much coaches really deserve to be paid. Shouldn't we go to fair competition between rival schools like college athletics was meant to do? Get back to getting these players in the class room....get back to the fans who went to rival schools jabbing eachother about sports... Enough with the media BS - Just do a large catch all contract for this league of 80 and call it a day.

I know this is a pipe dream scenario (and has literally 0 chance of happening), especially for any team on the "outside," but enough is enough. The game is getting ruined and it's not going to be fun anymore...

Thoughts?

P5 fans, would you be satisfied in a system like this? Remember now, even if your conference gets smaller, you're in with your regional T80 schools - so it's still familiar faces, plus maybe an AAC or MWC team depending on where you are, and you have 5OOC to keep any important rivalries.

I know any of the 15 interested would be thrilled, so no need to ask there.

They key would be taking the most 80 deserving teams and finding a strict set of standards for membership to follow. Something everyone meets, but others do not (and not conference affiliation).

ncbeta, as a graduate of a small school myself, I understand your pain and longing to get ECU in with the bigger programs. The numbers just don't add up, though. Your con of "the extra 15 schools could drag down money..." would have been a fine place to start and end the conversation. That is indeed what would happen right now with 80 schools. I can see a 3x20 happening much sooner than a 4x20 if each conference is intended to be fairly equal in revenue. You could easily have a top level 3x20 made up primarily of the existing P5 schools and then a slightly lower conference of 20 schools that competed nationwide and was still associated heavily with the other 3 conferences (especially in non-football sports). If ECU was willing to be part of a 20 school nationwide conference that spanned from San Diego State to Temple, then 4x20 could work. However, you are never getting Cal in the same conference as SDSU or Penn State in the same conference as Temple. It just isn't going to happen for a number of reasons that many have spelled out over the last few years on here.

I like the 8x10 concept but only if it leads to round-robin play. By not playing everyone in your conference and only allowing conference champs in the playoff you are opening the door for a lot of criticism. Say Alabama and LSU both have 1 loss but don't play each other. One gets in the playoff and the other doesn't?

(01-31-2014 03:31 PM)bigblueblindness Wrote:  ncbeta, as a graduate of a small school myself, I understand your pain and longing to get ECU in with the bigger programs. The numbers just don't add up, though. Your con of "the extra 15 schools could drag down money..." would have been a fine place to start and end the conversation. That is indeed what would happen right now with 80 schools. I can see a 3x20 happening much sooner than a 4x20 if each conference is intended to be fairly equal in revenue. You could easily have a top level 3x20 made up primarily of the existing P5 schools and then a slightly lower conference of 20 schools that competed nationwide and was still associated heavily with the other 3 conferences (especially in non-football sports). If ECU was willing to be part of a 20 school nationwide conference that spanned from San Diego State to Temple, then 4x20 could work. However, you are never getting Cal in the same conference as SDSU or Penn State in the same conference as Temple. It just isn't going to happen for a number of reasons that many have spelled out over the last few years on here.

I know, but at what point do we question how much money is frivolously wasted on CFB? This kind of thinking got our country into the mess it is now, but I'll leave that for the spin room.

When will we start using sports to pump money back into academics and not 100 million dollar stadium upgrades? Why not $75m and send the other 25 to academia? I get private donations to athletics, but things like media deals should definitely go back into the education system, in some way. Take that and help the schools on the bubble get greater funds to expand their university, not hurt them.

You know what I'm saying? Why not let those SDSU and Temple kids in on the fun...give them a few more resources to work and learn with..

I know it's a bit hypocritical to say "hey throw in these extra and sacrifice the others" but that's why I say there needs to be a strict set of standards for being in this division. If you meet it, great, if not, not great. No "well Iowa state gets in because they've always been in, sorry USF with more research dollars." or "Well Wake's always been in, sorry ECU with a larger fan base."

Anyway, the system is just ridiculous at all levels. The spending, the hypocrisy, the forgetting what college athletics is meant for in the first place. It just needs a revamp in general.

We don't think of ourselves as a small school btw

(01-31-2014 03:37 PM)Wolfman Wrote:  I like the 8x10 concept but only if it leads to round-robin play. By not playing everyone in your conference and only allowing conference champs in the playoff you are opening the door for a lot of criticism. Say Alabama and LSU both have 1 loss but don't play each other. One gets in the playoff and the other doesn't?

4x20 would work but 8x10 would not.

You would be kicking solid programs out of the P5 conferences. Granted still with seat at the same table but you will never see conferences revert to their 10 team origins.

The B10 will never kick out Penn State.

The SEC will never kick out South Carolina and Arkansas. Not to mention A&M.

The P12 "could" go back to the P10 but what kind of flack would play out with Colorado and Utah getting dumped?

The only play here is to expand or stand pat. Contraction will never happen.

(01-31-2014 03:37 PM)Wolfman Wrote:  I like the 8x10 concept but only if it leads to round-robin play. By not playing everyone in your conference and only allowing conference champs in the playoff you are opening the door for a lot of criticism. Say Alabama and LSU both have 1 loss but don't play each other. One gets in the playoff and the other doesn't?

That's true, and it's not perfect. I was really thinking to preserve rivalries. You can take the lack of a CCG and add a 13th game though. 4OOC + 9 conference games. 16 game season. It's not much further than what we're working with now if you play a CCG.

Again, it's not perfect, I get your point about the RR schedule. A lot of people seem to like it and it does have it's benefits.

(01-31-2014 03:41 PM)GO Coogs GO!!! Wrote:  

(01-31-2014 03:37 PM)Wolfman Wrote:  I like the 8x10 concept but only if it leads to round-robin play. By not playing everyone in your conference and only allowing conference champs in the playoff you are opening the door for a lot of criticism. Say Alabama and LSU both have 1 loss but don't play each other. One gets in the playoff and the other doesn't?

4x20 would work but 8x10 would not.

You would be kicking solid programs out of the P5 conferences. Granted still with seat at the same table but you will never see conferences revert to their 10 team origins.

The B10 will never kick out Penn State.

The SEC will never kick out South Carolina and Arkansas. Not to mention A&M.

The P12 "could" go back to the P10 but what kind of flack would play out with Colorado and Utah getting dumped?

The only play here is to expand or stand pat. Contraction will never happen.

I wouldn't necessarily break apart conferences, just make completely new ones.

(01-31-2014 03:49 PM)ncbeta Wrote:  I wouldn't necessarily break apart conferences, just make completely new ones.

They are not mutually exclusive. Those are the same thing.

For example you can't have a 10 team B10 without pushing some teams to the curb even if that was in a new "power" conference it would not be the B10.

(01-31-2014 03:53 PM)GO Coogs GO!!! Wrote:  

(01-31-2014 03:49 PM)ncbeta Wrote:  I wouldn't necessarily break apart conferences, just make completely new ones.

They are not mutually exclusive. Those are the same thing.

For example you can't have a 10 team B10 without pushing some teams to the curb even if that was in a new "power" conference it would not be the B10.

Well there wouldn't likely be a 10 team conference composed strictly of X-B1G members. There one side may have Cincy and Iowa st and the other may have UL and Pitt or # of teams. It would depend how the geography played out. Also depends on who the 80 are and the criteria set by the divison.

(01-31-2014 03:06 PM)ncbeta Wrote:  Just thinking out loud here. Humor the idea...I got it from the 4x20 thread.

Some calling for a division of 65 or so, what about the following:

-8x10 Geographical conferences - Split into 2 divisions of 5.
-Play all 4 in your divison, plus 3 in opposite.
-5 OOC games due to the splitting of larger conferences, schools are more free to link up with old rivals and conference mates.
-Conference champion goes to 8 team playoff

Pros:

-G5 schools with large student body and alumni bases see increased fan interest and viewership, contributing to the entire pie. Benefit from drawing those who are currently disinterested because the way the sport is set up. May not even be that big of a drag on $$$.

-A little company at the bottom benefits those P5 programs that would be sent to the dark ages in a league of 65. The top G5 actually get to contribute to the quality.

- It's actually fair. What's a competition if you are playing from the red tees when the school down the road has to play from the gold?

-10 team geographic conference maximizes regional fan interest. Regional rivalries are restored, OOC allows for other rivalries to continue. It's a win-win.

-Playoff fan interest maxamized- see SE champ take on the NE champ. All of the SE/NE teams will be following their champ.

- Easier travel for both fans and schools.

- Benefits academia for the 66-80 teams by association.
Cons:


-OOC is meaningless. Only played for practice and fan interest (what's wrong with that though??).

- Majority of P5 schools would be against this- (okay so let's close the thread here right?)

- Splits up some rivalries - but OOC games help.

- the extra 15 schools could drag down money, but who's to say their fan interest and or regional interest doesn't make up for it?

- Schools like UCF and ECU piss off UF and UNC by recruiting on an even playing field and drawing in top recruits? Okay, I HAD to throw that one in there.


I mean think about it. There's only so many facility upgrades you can buy, there's only so much frivolous spending to do, there's only so much coaches really deserve to be paid. Shouldn't we go to fair competition between rival schools like college athletics was meant to do? Get back to getting these players in the class room....get back to the fans who went to rival schools jabbing eachother about sports... Enough with the media BS - Just do a large catch all contract for this league of 80 and call it a day.

I know this is a pipe dream scenario (and has literally 0 chance of happening), especially for any team on the "outside," but enough is enough. The game is getting ruined and it's not going to be fun anymore...

Thoughts?

P5 fans, would you be satisfied in a system like this? Remember now, even if your conference gets smaller, you're in with your regional T80 schools - so it's still familiar faces, plus maybe an AAC or MWC team depending on where you are, and you have 5OOC to keep any important rivalries.
I know any of the 15 interested would be thrilled, so no need to ask there.

The key would be taking the most 80 deserving teams and finding a strict set of standards for membership to follow. Something everyone meets, but others do not (and not conference affiliation).

The problem with your "key" is identifying who is "deserving" and who isn't. That's pretty subjective. To make it less subjective - in fact, not subjective at all - you could just say that only schools with an average football home attendance of 30,000, or those which belong to a conference that averages at least 30,000, are eligible for this division. Then you have to let the conference affiliations sort themselves out. The end result is not as tidy, but when has college football ever been tidy?

That cutoff point (30,000) has the advantage of including all but a handful of P5 schools, who stay in because of their conference membership, and all G5 schools with more support than the P5 bottom feeders. It would top out in the vicinity of 80 teams. The current FBS schools/conferences that don't make the cut would either have to drop back to FCS, or more likely, flesh out their ranks with the stronger FCS conferences to form a separate division that also has 70-90 schools.

Then it would make sense for the P5+ to limit their out-of-division schedules to this second tier division instead of the entire FCS.

(01-31-2014 03:59 PM)ncbeta Wrote:  

(01-31-2014 03:53 PM)GO Coogs GO!!! Wrote:  

(01-31-2014 03:49 PM)ncbeta Wrote:  I wouldn't necessarily break apart conferences, just make completely new ones.

They are not mutually exclusive. Those are the same thing.

For example you can't have a 10 team B10 without pushing some teams to the curb even if that was in a new "power" conference it would not be the B10.

Well there wouldn't likely be a 10 team conference composed strictly of X-B1G members. There one side may have Cincy and Iowa st and the other may have UL and Pitt or # of teams. It would depend how the geography played out. Also depends on who the 80 are and the criteria set by the divison.

Which is why a 4x20 would work but a 8x10 will not.

The B10, SEC, ACC, and P12 expand to 20 with whomever.

What would be the point of having 20 teams when you may not play one of them but every 3-4 years?

I'm not trying to predict the future here, I'm not here to say what's going to happen. I'm trying to create an idea that's better than what we currently have/are moving to. Whether or not it actually has a shot at happening, wouldn't this be better?

If the P5 wanted to have 80 schools in the top tier, they wouldn't have ever kicked out the AAC in the first place. They clearly don't want to expand the ranks - there's a glass ceiling of 60 to 70 schools that can be in the power "division" and they'd rather kick out an entire conference that contains too many "undesirables" even if it might have some P5-worthy institutions. I completely understand why fans of G5 schools are trying to figure out ways to get included into the power structure, but the reality is that their hopes are largely based on landing one of the 2 or 4 spots that the Big 12 might add in the future. There won't be much or any growth after that (and definitely not a mass addition of 10-plus schools).

(01-31-2014 04:33 PM)ncbeta Wrote:  What would be the point of having 20 teams when you may not play one of them but every 3-4 years?

I'm not trying to predict the future here, I'm not here to say what's going to happen. I'm trying to create an idea that's better than what we currently have/are moving to. Whether or not it actually has a shot at happening, wouldn't this be better?

From the perspective of G5 schools that would get promoted, of course it would be better.

From the perspective of P5 schools, it makes no sense at all to do this. It's not even about the numbers themselves - they want full and complete autonomy about their membership decisions without interference from outside forces telling them what's "best".

(01-31-2014 04:37 PM)Frank the Tank Wrote:  If the P5 wanted to have 80 schools in the top tier, they wouldn't have ever kicked out the AAC in the first place.

Oh I agree just explaining how 8x10 is not possible.

I would say standing pat (or expanding the B12 only) at 99% chance of happening, and only 1% of any expansion elsewhere.

(01-31-2014 04:33 PM)ncbeta Wrote:  What would be the point of having 20 teams when you may not play one of them but every 3-4 years?

I'm not trying to predict the future here, I'm not here to say what's going to happen. I'm trying to create an idea that's better than what we currently have/are moving to. Whether or not it actually has a shot at happening, wouldn't this be better?

College football fans are a vain bunch. B10 East and a B10 West would still be the B10.....

Names (B10, P12, SEC, ACC) matter.

That said it isn't going to happen anyway.

(01-31-2014 04:39 PM)Frank the Tank Wrote:  

(01-31-2014 04:33 PM)ncbeta Wrote:  What would be the point of having 20 teams when you may not play one of them but every 3-4 years?

I'm not trying to predict the future here, I'm not here to say what's going to happen. I'm trying to create an idea that's better than what we currently have/are moving to. Whether or not it actually has a shot at happening, wouldn't this be better?

From the perspective of G5 schools that would get promoted, of course it would be better.

From the perspective of P5 schools, it makes no sense at all to do this. It's not even about the numbers themselves - they want full and complete autonomy about their membership decisions without interference from outside forces telling them what's "best".

Well it would really be the 15 + P5 thinking collectively, so why wouldn't they have full autonomy? It benefits the P5 bottom feeders. If they're happy, the ones above them are happy, and the 15 are just glad to be there. Provide some higher quality OOC games by playing only in the division of 80 for maximum TV exposure/interest. Who wouldn't rather see a UCF/USF vs FSU instead of FSU - Bethune-cookman.

The entire group would break away from anyone telling them what's "best".

Still, there needs to individual requirements for membership, based on the school and not conference.

No interest.

(01-31-2014 04:44 PM)ncbeta Wrote:  Well it would really be the 15 + P5 thinking collectively, so why wouldn't they have full autonomy? It benefits the P5 bottom feeders. If they're happy, the ones above them are happy, and the 15 are just glad to be there. Provide some higher quality OOC games by playing only in the division of 80 for maximum TV exposure/interest. Who wouldn't rather see a UCF/USF vs FSU instead of FSU - Bethune-cookman.

The entire group would break away from anyone telling them what's "best".

Still, there needs to individual requirements for membership, based on the school and not conference.

No need or benefit for the P5 to do so.

Should someone/something open a big enough checkbook it will happen until that day it will not.

I get it UH is in the same boat and we were once on the "inside" in the SWC. It stings that much more for us. Temple, UConn, Cincy, SMU, Rice, and USF are the only ones who can really feel our pain.....

(01-31-2014 04:49 PM)GO Coogs GO!!! Wrote:  

(01-31-2014 04:44 PM)ncbeta Wrote:  Well it would really be the 15 + P5 thinking collectively, so why wouldn't they have full autonomy? It benefits the P5 bottom feeders. If they're happy, the ones above them are happy, and the 15 are just glad to be there. Provide some higher quality OOC games by playing only in the division of 80 for maximum TV exposure/interest. Who wouldn't rather see a UCF/USF vs FSU instead of FSU - Bethune-cookman.

The entire group would break away from anyone telling them what's "best".

Still, there needs to individual requirements for membership, based on the school and not conference.

No need or benefit for the P5 to do so.

Should someone/something open a big enough checkbook it will happen until that day it will not.

I get it UH is in the same boat and we were once on the "inside" in the SWC. It stings that much more for us. Temple, UConn, Cincy, SMU, Rice, and USF are the only ones who can really feel our pain.....

Hey, we shared a conference with VT and WVU at one point ...ancient history.


There are a lot of popular assumptions on this board that lack the research to back them up. Some of the research would be impossible anyway(even if we all had the time and resources at our disposal). Feel free to submit better ideas. I'm just trying to get some conversation stirring for better or worse, going against the grain here.