rematchs are not good for CCG
12-0 Iowa & 11-1 Wisc could both make playoffs, rematch sends 1 of them home
lets look at ACC, probation sent 6-6 school to CCG, not divisions
granted Char was not available, wrong stadium
was not Bos Coll fault place was empty
where the hell was FSU & Clemson
ACC only has 3 schools that travel well for FB, divisions has nothing to do with that

since both OSU & Wisc fill huge stadiums & travel well
last thing u want is them playing each other
and who would notice they didn't play for 6 yrs

Wow! I am amazed at how many P5 fans are already board with their conferences.

I hope for these sports networks' sake, you are a minority....lest we see tv bubble go POP!

(08-01-2014 10:28 PM)fresnofanatic Wrote:  Wow! I am amazed at how many P5 fans are already board with their conferences.

I hope for these sports networks' sake, you are a minority....lest we see tv bubble go POP!

Well, at least we are on the right board, then. If we really bored, we would be somewhere else.

(08-01-2014 08:38 AM)allthatyoucantleavebehind Wrote:  

(08-01-2014 08:24 AM)He1nousOne Wrote:  

(08-01-2014 06:55 AM)allthatyoucantleavebehind Wrote:  As a Big Ten fan, I hope this happens soon. The E/W division splits are very uneven. PSU won the tie-breaker against OSU in 2005 and 2008 for the Big Ten champ...but if there were a Big Ten title game in those years and PSU were battling for a spot in the CFP, we would NOT have played top 10 OSU (as the 2nd place team from the East division). We would have played some team barely in the top 20...and that would have been bad for the league. I'm not saying that Wisconsin, Iowa, and Nebraska will never have top 10 teams again; I AM saying that it's far more likely that PSU, OSU, UM (and even) MSU will field two top 10 team that can make a fine Big Ten title game.

I disagree with your biased assertion. No divisions will not happen in the Big Ten so you can stop whining about your Lions being in the "stacked" division as you are trying to sell us on.

Wow. Someone woke up on the wrong side of the bed!

I'm arguing about what's good for football. To step away from the Big Ten--which might be a bit too sensitive for you--the ACC is a prime example. They've had 6-6 teams and 7-4 teams make it to their championship games in recent years. The Pac-12 had 6-6 UCLA make the game (yes, USC's sanctions affected this....). I don't think that's good for football.

If #3 Iowa (12-0) and #6 Wisconsin (11-1) are the best two teams in the Big Ten, I wouldn't want them slumming down to play #16 Ohio State (9-3) in the Big Ten title game, if that were the scenario. That's good for football, in my opinion.

Conferences wont be just having championship games forever. There Will be a point when they have tournaments leading up to the championship game. So I really am not that worried about the situation you are putting forth.

I could see a conference third-place game being a distinct possibility. Last year the SEC had 3 teams go 7-1 in conference play and 1 team go 6-2. Alabama would have still lost the head-to-head tiebreak with Aubun, but neither played Missouri during the regular season. South Carolina could have also been 7-1 had Georgia not been healthy, which would have made picking only two teams that much messier.

A third-place game could be of more importance in an eight-team playoff, as it is more likely to catch a team on the bubble in need of a quality win.

The "conference tournament" idea is not far off. Maybe 10 years or so...but I do think they need to hit the magic number of 16 teams per conference first. And yes, when that happens, then a lot of this disappears. Two mega-teams from one half of the conference (ala LSU/Bama 2011 or OSU/UM 2006) wouldn't get shafted...they'd be able to play themselves into the final game by winning the conference semi-final.

While conferences may or may not get shafted in any given year because of a weak CCG matchup, the one thing that division DOES offer is widespread "relevance" to all conference games through November. Just about every team is "technically" still in the division race in early November...and even by mid-November, there are usually 2-4 teams (out of 6 or 7 per division) still with a chance at getting to the conference champ game. That's 4-8 teams per conference...which is almost every conference game for most of November that theoretically "matters."

Games that are "relevant" is what the TV networks pay money for...and money makes the conferences spin.

(08-02-2014 06:53 AM)allthatyoucantleavebehind Wrote:  The "conference tournament" idea is not far off. Maybe 10 years or so...but I do think they need to hit the magic number of 16 teams per conference first. And yes, when that happens, then a lot of this disappears. Two mega-teams from one half of the conference (ala LSU/Bama 2011 or OSU/UM 2006) wouldn't get shafted...they'd be able to play themselves into the final game by winning the conference semi-final.

If you are looking for a conference tournament in the future, I think you are looking in the wrong direction. Look to the past. For most of NCAA history, all conferences had a football tournament. It was called the "regular season", and every team played every other team.

I just don't see the college football season being extended to 16 games any time soon.

I have said before and will continue to say it, the expansion of college football is what the Networks want. They have lost a lot of NFL content. They will be refashioning college football partially in the likeness of the NFL.

They cant expand the season until they earn themselves some PR credit. That is being done right now by all that they are giving to student athletes. Just look at how much of the Autonomy power was focused on Student-Athlete health, wellness and support? That is where the good PR will be built up. We just started August. Just watch the ESPN PR department spin this baby up big time during this football season.

The Networks all want more games. Even CBS is drooling for conference tournaments and an expanded National Tournament. That is because they have all the metrics and know how popular tournaments are in general. They will happen eventually.

I don't think most schools would go along with expanding the season for a few if it means reducing it for most. And I don't think the networks want to reduce or eliminate bye weeks, because they are necessary to allow for weeknight games - time slots they badly need to fill with live programming.

That means there are three options for expanding the season: add weeks in August, December or January.

If you add them in August, all schools are affected. They have to start before school is in session and when a lot of fans are on vacation. Many of those early games are going to be sparsely attended, and many season ticket holders are going to be unhappy.

If you add them in January, you are going head to head with the NFL playoffs and conference basketball games. This isn't a time when the networks need more programming - there's plenty available.

That leaves December. Here, you have to choose between sacrificing exams or competing with the early bowls, or both. If you take the exam option, you are attacking the last vestige of pretense that these athletes are students. You may as well change the rules and not require football players to take any courses in the fall semester (which I could live with).

Maybe I just answered my own questions.

Once again, you go over the top in trying to make an argument. You don't stick to rationalization. You over sensationalize a talking point.

Adding another week in December is the option. Will it affect exams? That can be worked around and to say that it cant is numbskullery at it's finest. Once again...all the PR right now about doing the right thing for students is about building up PR cred BEFORE other moves such as an expanded conference season it pushed through by the Autonomy Council.

In regards to harming those early bowls? They have nothing to do with the Major Conferences. You think they care about those?

(08-02-2014 01:18 PM)He1nousOne Wrote:  Once again, you go over the top in trying to make an argument. You don't stick to rationalization. You over sensationalize a talking point.

Adding another week in December is the option. Will it affect exams? That can be worked around and to say that it cant is numbskullery at it's finest. Once again...all the PR right now about doing the right thing for students is about building up PR cred BEFORE other moves such as an expanded conference season it pushed through by the Autonomy Council.

In regards to harming those early bowls? They have nothing to do with the Major Conferences. You think they care about those?

Is there a reason you feel it necessary to be a combative horse's ass? Are you just not capable of a civil discussion without making personal attacks against anybody with whom you don't agree?

Grow up kid.

(08-02-2014 01:24 PM)ken d Wrote:  

(08-02-2014 01:18 PM)He1nousOne Wrote:  Once again, you go over the top in trying to make an argument. You don't stick to rationalization. You over sensationalize a talking point.

Adding another week in December is the option. Will it affect exams? That can be worked around and to say that it cant is numbskullery at it's finest. Once again...all the PR right now about doing the right thing for students is about building up PR cred BEFORE other moves such as an expanded conference season it pushed through by the Autonomy Council.

In regards to harming those early bowls? They have nothing to do with the Major Conferences. You think they care about those?

Is there a reason you feel it necessary to be a combative horse's ass? Are you just not capable of a civil discussion without making personal attacks against anybody with whom you don't agree?

Grow up kid.

You say none of those three said any of the comments. I post to you one from the very first page and you still continue on as if I am the problem. You ARE a f'n idiot and that is just an obvious fact because you are the one acting childish by trying to still come at me despite the glaringly obvious fact that YOU DONT HAVE A CLUE WHAT YOU ARE TALKING ABOUT BECAUSE YOU NEVER GO BACK AND ACTUALLY LOOK, unlike those of us who can see the obvious.

So don't be a hypocrite about name calling while you are calling me a horse's ass while simply showing you that you are wrong. It is not my problem that you cannot admit when you are obviously wrong. Don't want to be called an idiot? Then stop making obviously false statements in an attempt to continue your failed talking point.

(08-01-2014 08:46 AM)AngryAphid Wrote:  

(08-01-2014 07:02 AM)Native Georgian Wrote:  I'll agree to disagree on the South Carolina/Tennessee issue, but we both agree that Georgia has 3 other SEC opponents that "outweigh" Alabama in importance. Sometimes life just works out that way.

It will continue to work that way until the SEC goes to nine conference games.

I’m just saying, If Wisconsin and Ohio State didn’t face each
other over a six year period it would be greatly criticize.

True, as far as it goes. But it overlooks the fact that Georgia plays an annual OOC rivalry (Ga. Tech) that is of equal/greater intensity than most SEC rivalries. So does Florida (Fla. State). So does South Carolina (Clemson). So does Kentucky (Louisville).

B1G teams don't have OOC rivalries like that.

(08-02-2014 02:45 PM)Native Georgian Wrote:  

(08-01-2014 08:46 AM)AngryAphid Wrote:  

(08-01-2014 07:02 AM)Native Georgian Wrote:  I'll agree to disagree on the South Carolina/Tennessee issue, but we both agree that Georgia has 3 other SEC opponents that "outweigh" Alabama in importance. Sometimes life just works out that way.

It will continue to work that way until the SEC goes to nine conference games.

I’m just saying, If Wisconsin and Ohio State didn’t face each
other over a six year period it would be greatly criticize.

True, as far as it goes. But it overlooks the fact that Georgia plays an annual OOC rivalry (Ga. Tech) that is of equal/greater intensity than most SEC rivalries. So does Florida (Fla. State). So does South Carolina (Clemson). So does Kentucky (Louisville).

B1G teams don't have OOC rivalries like that.

I do think the Dawgs have more rivals than most SEC schools, but within the state the rivalries have their priority based upon the region. Mostly around Athens and Atlanta it is the Tech rivalry that takes priority. Outside of those two cities it varies. In South Georgia (particularly from the swamp to the coast) it's the Gators they hate the most. Travel from Savannah to Augusta and you'll find the animus for the Gamecocks. All along the Western border of the state it's Auburn with the epicenter being in Columbus. Head to Northwest Georgia and it becomes Tennessee. But, suffice it to say they are all true rivals of Georgia.

(08-02-2014 02:45 PM)Native Georgian Wrote:  

(08-01-2014 08:46 AM)AngryAphid Wrote:  

(08-01-2014 07:02 AM)Native Georgian Wrote:  I'll agree to disagree on the South Carolina/Tennessee issue, but we both agree that Georgia has 3 other SEC opponents that "outweigh" Alabama in importance. Sometimes life just works out that way.

It will continue to work that way until the SEC goes to nine conference games.

I’m just saying, If Wisconsin and Ohio State didn’t face each
other over a six year period it would be greatly criticize.

True, as far as it goes. But it overlooks the fact that Georgia plays an annual OOC rivalry (Ga. Tech) that is of equal/greater intensity than most SEC rivalries. So does Florida (Fla. State). So does South Carolina (Clemson). So does Kentucky (Louisville).

B1G teams don't have OOC rivalries like that.

Iowa and Iowa State. Neither team has a rivalry within the Big Ten that is greater, at this point in time.

It would be cool if the Iowa/Iowa State game could end the regular season the way those SEC/ACC rivalry games do. I suppose that was dictated by wanting to have the final weekend be climactic for the league race before the advent of the CCG.

Actually in Iowa they love having that game early on. It matters more in terms of how it affects their seasons going forward. It is a statement game for both programs in terms of where their season may go that year. Plus it is a good weather week in Iowa.

(08-02-2014 10:52 AM)He1nousOne Wrote:  I have said before and will continue to say it, the expansion of college football is what the Networks want. They have lost a lot of NFL content. They will be refashioning college football partially in the likeness of the NFL.

They cant expand the season until they earn themselves some PR credit. That is being done right now by all that they are giving to student athletes. Just look at how much of the Autonomy power was focused on Student-Athlete health, wellness and support? That is where the good PR will be built up. We just started August. Just watch the ESPN PR department spin this baby up big time during this football season.

The Networks all want more games. Even CBS is drooling for conference tournaments and an expanded National Tournament. That is because they have all the metrics and know how popular tournaments are in general. They will happen eventually.

Spot on H1.... At the bare minimum, I see the B10 and SEC expanding to 15 while the ACC allows ND to play for its CCG. Those three conferences will go to three divisions of five schools and have wildcard games before their CCG. The PAC 12 will go to three divisions of 4 schools and do likewise until the B12 can be carved up....