Received an IM that suggested that it probably is too much to swallow for there to be what amounts to 8 non-contract (for the most part) schools in a field of 32 given a playoff path, and let it never be said that I don't respectfully consider all comers' thoughtful suggestions/criticisms... and this was one that I thought particularly valid.

So, some re-tooling of the process now results in exactly one Silver team from each geographic region gaining access to the playoff path, at the sacrifice of one of the formerly-self-scheduled games now becoming a pre-designated 11th game each season for the Silvers vs. the opposite grid's same-ranked schools... in other words, the 1s vs. the 1s, 2s/2s, 3s/3s and so on, with the key being that the winner of that 1/1 game becomes the only one of the two to get a playoff berth.

In so doing, whereas before the top 3 Gold teams in each division were automatic playoff qualifiers, there is now a 4th place one that squeezes in... which would be the one in the opposite grid from the Silver region's champ.

Accordingly, here's the new work-up:

(11-21-2014 11:12 PM)_sturt_ Wrote:  

(11-21-2014 01:36 PM)robertfoshizzle Wrote:  Novel idea, but why should garbage programs like Washington State and Iowa State automatically get promoted to the gold divisions? Sounds like more P5 entitlement to me. At least the G5 schools would have a shot of moving up I guess.

Thanks for the response.

Pragmatically, I assume we would have to start with 64 of the 65 con5 schools in Gold and have others earn.the right to replace them.

4 conferences of 20.

New graphic...

Highlights that almost all of the regions are contained within state lines, with the exception of Temple and a few Texas schools.

Now you just have to incorporate a pathway to move up for schools from Alaska, Delaware, Maine, Montana, New Hampshire, North Dakota, South Dakota and Vermont to achieve the "fairness" you so desperately seek.

(12-12-2014 07:47 PM)Zombiewoof Wrote:  Now you just have to incorporate a pathway to move up for schools from Alaska, Delaware, Maine, Montana, New Hampshire, North Dakota, South Dakota and Vermont to achieve the "fairness" you so desperately seek.

Yep. Didn't specify that part b/c I didn't anticipate anyone really caring about FCS schools in general, regardless of their location, having a pathway to FBS. But yeah, I do.

There are some different options on that front, but the one that seems to me makes most sense is to place a clause out there that any school that finishes last in their Silver division 2 years in a row is subject to being relegated to FCS, pending an applicant from that school's region petitioning to move up. I would set the bar at 2 years because that would be emblematic of a school that has indeed hit rock bottom and deserves to be receive scrutiny.

At that point, it would fall back to the FCS school having met current attendance standards, and perhaps some additional standards that make direct on-the-field and off-the-field comparisons between the FCS applicant and the lagging Silver program. I would not want it left to a committee, which then ends up being a political tug-of-war, but rather a matter of pre-set standards either having been met or not.

Notably, this compares somewhat but not completely to the Gold/Silver mechanism because (a) there is no way to anticipate that the two teams would ever meet on the field, and moreover (b) by NCAA by-laws there is only an actual difference between FBS and FCS schools; there is no NCAA by-law difference between contract and non-contract schools. That distinction merits a somewhat higher expectation and scrutiny for FCS schools moving up to FBS.

(12-05-2014 05:19 PM)globetrotter Wrote:  

(11-22-2014 10:20 PM)Frank the Tank Wrote:  We see a promotion/relegation suggestion every few weeks on this board as if it's some novel idea. Groups of schools should have 100% choice to associate themselves in conferences with whoever they want for money, academics, TV contracts, demographics, prestige and pretty any reason BUT last year's football team results. That's the "equitable" thing to do based on free market value instead of forcing schools to subsidize others financially and/or be grouped with schools that they don't consider to be their academic peers. (Not to mention that there are dozens of sports to deal with in conferences besides football.)

I say we just make a tournament of the top 16 teams that were able to have the highest attendance over the year or tv viewership. YEAH free market!

Once you corporately embrace the philosophy that the conference title is not the end-all-be-all, and instead, there's a national title at-stake, then it become incumbent to ensure that there is a path to a national championship for all who are members of that NCAA group... in this case, FBS.

The lure of the concept proposed here, or at least one of them, is that it does not require schools to dis-associate with each other or force association with each other. This is not re-creating conferences. It is, for the overwhelming majority of teams, only somewhat reformatting their regular season schedule, and in many cases, more to their liking than what their current 14-school conference schedule allows them.

Closer study affirms... there are no subsiz-ees.

(11-23-2014 11:13 AM)10thMountain Wrote:  Another issue is that by NCAA rules, only half the participants in a NCAA tournament first round can be AQs.

That means if all FBS is included that's a minimum of 22 participants which is not a great number for a tournament and is way too many anyway.

Since there are no NCAA rules regarding football tournaments, I'm not persuaded this is a concern. Besides, if ever something like this came to be, it would likely come out of a committee workgroup specifically asked to engineer something and make a recommendation to receive membership-wide consideration... any details needing new NCAA tweaks to existing regs would get tweaked if, indeed, the overall plan was found acceptable.

And actually, with regard to how this meshes with current NCAA regs, I don't pretend to be an NCAA By-Laws "scholar," but I do have a copy and I have read through quite a bit of it... once you get past the regs on number of games allowed in FBS, and as best I can tell, the primary obstacle to this plan would, in fact, be resolved if the Big XII/ACC championship game dereg petition was approved... ie, allowing conferences to decide for themselves how they want to determine their champion without regard to divisions and round robins and such.

Lol, we beat the s&*^ out of UNC and NC State as it is. Why should they be considered "gold"?

(12-17-2014 01:42 PM)NBPirate Wrote:  Lol, we beat the s&*^ out of UNC and NC State as it is. Why should they be considered "gold"?

At the risk of stating the obvious, b/c all of the con5 schools get that status at the start, with the exception of one (64 + ND = 65, so that means one con5 school has to start as Silver).

What shouldn't be lost on anyone who has faith that their team could excel at a slightly higher-level if given the opportunity to prove it on the field...

Congrats... this gives you that opportunity.

(12-15-2014 08:31 PM)_sturt_ Wrote:  Once you corporately embrace the philosophy that the conference title is not the end-all-be-all, and instead, there's a national title at-stake, then it become incumbent to ensure that there is a path to a national championship for all who are members of that NCAA group... in this case, FBS.

The lure of the concept proposed here, or at least one of them, is that it does not require schools to dis-associate with each other or force association with each other. This is not re-creating conferences. It is, for the overwhelming majority of teams, only somewhat reformatting their regular season schedule, and in many cases, more to their liking than what their current 14-school conference schedule allows them.

I think that perhaps you are under a misapprehension here, namely that at big-time schools in the Power conferences, that winning the conference is regarded as an "end-all-be-all" while the national title is regarded as, well, something ancillary.

You couldn't be further from the truth: At big-time schools like LSU, Alabama, FSU, USC, Ohio State, etc., the conference title is considered to be a nice accomplishment, something to be proud of, sure, but also as strictly secondary to the Big Goal, which is to win the national championship. In fact, in years when winning the conference clearly will not put the team in the national title picture, it is regarded as, at best, a kind of consolation prize.

IOW's, there is just as much focus on winning the national title in football as there is in basketball or any other sport.

And yet, clearly, these same schools and their fan bases do NOT regard it as "incumbent" that all FBS schools have a path to the national title. For example, if Marshall had gone undefeated this year but did not make the playoffs, while Alabama wins the national title, nobody at Alabama would think their title invalid or tainted because Marshall didn't get a chance to play for it "on the field". And truth is, nobody in California or Ohio or Texas or Florida would think that way either.

Rightly or wrongly, the great bulk of the college football community doesn't think that all of FBS has to have a path to the title for that title to be regarded as legit.

Heck, this year, a Power conference, the Big 12, is not being allowed to play for the title and yet the community is going to regard the playoff winner as legit anyway. So do you really think anyone will care that the Sun Belt champ was excluded?

And also, your gold and silver divisions really does radically restructure the conferences. IMHO, you are fetishizing "NCAA group" the way you think some fetishize their conference. A much more palatable solution to your philosophical issue about "all of FBS" would be just to create a new NCAA division, consisting of only the 65 Power teams (including Notre Dame). Then you wouldn't have to worry about that anymore.

(12-12-2014 05:47 PM)Hawkeye Fan Wrote:  

(11-21-2014 11:12 PM)_sturt_ Wrote:  

(11-21-2014 01:36 PM)robertfoshizzle Wrote:  Novel idea, but why should garbage programs like Washington State and Iowa State automatically get promoted to the gold divisions? Sounds like more P5 entitlement to me. At least the G5 schools would have a shot of moving up I guess.

Thanks for the response.

Pragmatically, I assume we would have to start with 64 of the 65 con5 schools in Gold and have others earn.the right to replace them.

4 conferences of 20.

Hawkeye, especially for you :) ...here's how this plan would have altered the 2014 Iowa schedule while simultaneously accomplishing all the benefits previously indicated...

(11-26-2014 01:27 AM)Wedge Wrote:  Even more so for the core members of most of the P5 conferences. Most of the SEC has been together for nearly 100 years, I think. Two-thirds of the Big Ten has been together for 100 years, and Michigan State has been there for 50. The California Pac schools and Washington have all been together for at least 90 years and the Oregon schools and Wazzu with them for about 90% of that time. The old ACC core has been together since they broke off from the Southern Conference more than 50 years ago. Tradition sells, and long-standing rivalries sell. Pods don't offer the value to these schools that would be needed to give all that up.

You don't see major league baseball dissolving the American and National Leagues and replacing them with pods.

Continuing that same theme... Wedge, this for you and your Cal Bears...

(11-26-2014 01:32 AM)Kaplony Wrote:  Stuck with the NC & VA schools + WVU and UMD?


No South Carolina, FSU, or GT?




Quite possibly the dumbest thing I have seen concerning realignment on here and the fact that it is even in the running with some of the asinine proposals on here at times should speak volumes.

Actually, Kaplony, you'll be pleased to know it's not quite so dire...