Started on this probably two summers ago, and have tweaked and tweaked over time.

Don't read this and mistake me for someone who imagines this could actually be enacted any time soon. But it at least presents some elements that attempt to get us closer to a coherent system where, in spite of 128-ish schools and a limited calendar to fit all of it into... with this or something like this, it is all... all... decided on the field.

Notably, it only adds one additional game to the path than is currently on the calendar. But, like anything this ambitious, it certainly does require a few paradigm changes, some of which are going to be instantly lampooned, I know. It's the nature of the beast. And a beast it is.

Criticism... constructive, especially... is good. But hopefully some will read the fine print and find a lot to like, or at least, some aspects of it that they like... and will comment and say as much... we'll see.

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.

(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.

I get your intention but it ignores that conferences are groups of schools who want to play together every year. This says "too bad, you have to play these others we've assigned you and these younger teams so that you can grow their program at the expense of your own."

(11-21-2014 11:22 PM)10thMountain Wrote:  I get your intention but it ignores that conferences are groups of schools who want to play together every year. This says "too bad, you have to play these others we've assigned you and these younger teams so that you can grow their program at the expense of your own."

Exactly. In this scenario Clemson does not play South Carolina, Georgia, Georgia Tech, or FSU. Tennessee would hardly play any SEC teams. Too many examples to list. No way this would even be considered.

(11-21-2014 01:02 PM)_sturt_ Wrote:  Started on this probably two summers ago, and have tweaked and tweaked over time.

Question: Do you consider the structure of NCAA basketball, with conference play followed by the 68-team tourney, to be 'equitable', and if not, why not?

I am sorry but this would be worse for us. Relegation is a great idea but we have invested and play at a higher level than any of the schools you grouped us with. This puts us in a worse situation as nobody would want to watch games against the schools you put us with. I assume you are collectively bargaining with equal distribution. As long as the schools are not evenly distributed and a draft is not established this wouldn't work

(11-21-2014 01:02 PM)_sturt_ Wrote:  Started on this probably two summers ago, and have tweaked and tweaked over time.

Don't read this and mistake me for someone who imagines this could actually be enacted any time soon. But it at least presents some elements that attempt to get us closer to a coherent system where, in spite of 128-ish schools and a limited calendar to fit all of it into... with this or something like this, it is all... all... decided on the field.

Notably, it only adds one additional game to the path than is currently on the calendar. But, like anything this ambitious, it certainly does require a few paradigm changes, some of which are going to be instantly lampooned, I know. It's the nature of the beast. And a beast it is.

Criticism... constructive, especially... is good. But hopefully some will read the fine print and find a lot to like, or at least, some aspects of it that they like... and will comment and say as much... we'll see.

Respectfully, ND in that grid accomplishes exactly none of its goals in playing sports.

In my opinion, you would have to duct tape a 12 gauge shotgun to Jack Swarbrick's forehead to get him to listen to that idea.

Take your "silver" and stick it up your ass.

Is that not what Memphis deserves?

(11-21-2014 11:22 PM)10thMountain Wrote:  I get your intention but it ignores that conferences are groups of schools who want to play together every year. This says "too bad, you have to play these others we've assigned you and these younger teams so that you can grow their program at the expense of your own."

Hmmmm... well, I get what you're saying, but I think that's kinda seeing it with some blinders to the whole of the picture.

First, it mainly sets schools in groupings with schools they've been most used to playing, and then where it doesn't, allows a few slots to make up for that.

I would remind that conferences are, yes, groups of schools who want to play together... but like any "family," some dyads are closer than others, and in fact, some are fairly disconnected in truth, but show up for Thanksgiving just because it's family, right?

In other words... sure, you don't want to pry Florida and Georgia away from each other, but if given the choice, Florida and Ole Miss might not feel all that compelled to play each other with any regularity.

Second... to the assertion that you see this as having to play teams to grow them at the expense of your own... hold up... this is already the status quo... there's really no change here... contract conference teams already are routinely playing 1-3 non-contract conference teams annually.

This only puts into place some structure for delineating the contract/non-contract teams that play each other... doing that better allows us to get to the real on-the-field champion in a way the vaguely resembles the successful March Madness template.

But it doesn't.

A&M doesn't want annual games with ANY of the teams you have us grouped with gold or silver and we're not the only ones who look at that and say "that's one or two games well enjoy and them a bunch that none of our fans will show up for!"

It's nothing but a vehicle to force the teams with big fan bases to subsidize the teams who have small fan bases that don't show up.

It's saying "if only we could force ourselves into the P5 so their programs and fans could prevent the lack of interest in our current set up"

But it's academic anyway. This set up will never be agree on by any P5 and several of the better G5

(11-21-2014 11:57 PM)Lurker Above Wrote:  Exactly. In this scenario Clemson does not play South Carolina, Georgia, Georgia Tech, or FSU. Tennessee would hardly play any SEC teams. Too many examples to list. No way this would even be considered.

To the "no way this would be considered' thing. Don't get me wrong. I get that. In the initial post I spoke to the realism/idealism thing. I have no illusions.

But I do put it out there nonetheless because if you slice the timeline as to how college football has looked at any 25 year point, you find some significant changes. That much is clear.

This just suggests a master plan that might contain some elements that could serve us well as we attempt to get to a place more like virtually all other championships in the world--ie, the whole enchilada is resolved on the field of play and there is almost no bickering about who had a fair/equal chance to prove themselves and who didn't. That much, I think, the vast majority of us think is a worthy goal.

To the balance of your post... Clemson already has to play South Carolina out-of-conference. That's the real rivalry that I think most would deem worthy of consideration. And there's no change here. They still can and no doubt would do that.

Iowa/Iowa State is the one other in-state rivalry that doesn't benefit from this... and, yet, the same can be said as Clemson/USC.

I have to agree that Tennessee would seem to arguably be one of five schools most disagreeable to this. Like everyone else, they have 3 self-scheduling slots to try to accommodate the rivalries Vols fans hold most dear--Florida, Georgia and Alabama. (I have relatives who live in KnoxVegas, as I did myself back in the Tee Martin era).

The rest of the disagreeables would be the four schools who consider themselves "national" in scope, and so I agree with the one poster who said that Notre Dame would be a "nay" vote, as Brigham Young would probably be, as well as Army and Navy.

(11-22-2014 11:36 AM)10thMountain Wrote:  But it doesn't.

A&M doesn't want annual games with ANY of the teams you have us grouped with gold or silver and we're not the only ones who look at that and say "that's one or two games well enjoy and them a bunch that none of our fans will show up for!"

I don't know you, but this seems a little disingenuous.

I live about 2 hours from College Station. I'm not an A&M fan, but I know the storyline, and I work around more than my share of A&M fans.

We'll just have to agree to disagree if you want me to believe that A&M fans don't want to play Texas, and to only a slightly lesser extent, Baylor or Texas Tech. And it's no secret that UT, A&M, OU and OSU all were reportedly this close to joining the PAC... a multi-million dollar decision that was only reversed at the last second. I claim the objective third-party ground on that one, though you're welcome to protest... I just don't see it as that much of a stretch.

(11-22-2014 11:36 AM)10thMountain Wrote:  It's nothing but a vehicle to force the teams with big fan bases to subsidize the teams who have small fan bases that don't show up.

This just repeats a mantra that I addressed in my previous post, without addressing the substance of my counter... in essence, you seem to be saying by just repeating yourself that "it is because I said it is." But if you have some direct counterpoint to that substance, I'll certainly consider it and try to respectfully respond.

We will disagree. A&M openly objected to going to the PAC and UT trying to negotiate us into their PAC deal without our consent. We clearly have no desire to play the other Big 12 Texas teams in football anymore. That was the whole point of the SEC move. I'll give you that in the beginning some wanted to keep the UT game going but we quickly got sick of the UT "we never want to play ever again because we're too good for this game" mantra and nowadays the vast majority of A&M fans say "eff em and ever playing them again"

http://greglange.blogspot.com/2013/04/my-college-football-plan.html


That's my plan.

1) 10 game regular season.

2) Conference champions make 16 game playoff with at larges to fill in the rest of the slots.

3) Two post season games for every team that doesn't make the playoffs against two teams of nearly the same rank.

4) Conference championship games only Thanksgiving weekend. Two post season games for every team that doesn't make the playoffs in December. Playoffs in January.

oh it is the professional Euro soccer solution again that ignores the vast number of issues associated with trying to shift teams and game schedules yearly as it relates to TV, fans and team travel

followed up by the all powerful argument that winning CUSA is as meaningful as being second in the SEC or Big 12 or PAC 12

here is a novel idea schedule good teams and beat them and get ranked in the top 4 or top 8 or whatever it is at the end of the year and then you can be in the playoffs

stop loading your conference up with moveups and hot garbage because you are concerned that you will not have enough hot garbage to be tied to for games if teams leave your horrid conference or that your conference will fall apart and then you will not have a lame conference to win so that you can cry that you deserved a playoff spot for beating D1-AA move ups and teams that are 7-5 to 1-11.....but those were CONFERENCE GAMES!!!!!

(Didn't read, at least not for comprehension, but doesn't let that give pause before posting an incoherent opinion anyhow. Okay. Whatever.)

(11-22-2014 11:41 AM)_sturt_ Wrote:  

(11-21-2014 11:57 PM)Lurker Above Wrote:  Exactly. In this scenario Clemson does not play South Carolina, Georgia, Georgia Tech, or FSU. Tennessee would hardly play any SEC teams. Too many examples to list. No way this would even be considered.

To the "no way this would be considered' thing. Don't get me wrong. I get that. In the initial post I spoke to the realism/idealism thing. I have no illusions.

But I do put it out there nonetheless because if you slice the timeline as to how college football has looked at any 25 year point, you find some significant changes. That much is clear.

This just suggests a master plan that might contain some elements that could serve us well as we attempt to get to a place more like virtually all other championships in the world--ie, the whole enchilada is resolved on the field of play and there is almost no bickering about who had a fair/equal chance to prove themselves and who didn't. That much, I think, the vast majority of us think is a worthy goal.

To the balance of your post... Clemson already has to play South Carolina out-of-conference. That's the real rivalry that I think most would deem worthy of consideration. And there's no change here. They still can and no doubt would do that.

Iowa/Iowa State is the one other in-state rivalry that doesn't benefit from this... and, yet, the same can be said as Clemson/USC.

I have to agree that Tennessee would seem to arguably be one of five schools most disagreeable to this. Like everyone else, they have 3 self-scheduling slots to try to accommodate the rivalries Vols fans hold most dear--Florida, Georgia and Alabama. (I have relatives who live in KnoxVegas, as I did myself back in the Tee Martin era).

The rest of the disagreeables would be the four schools who consider themselves "national" in scope, and so I agree with the one poster who said that Notre Dame would be a "nay" vote, as Brigham Young would probably be, as well as Army and Navy.

And again that's where you are dead wrong. There are more than just four. You stuck us with sunbelt teams. We left that level a long time ago. What about cincy byu Ucf etc. Too much treasure etc has been spent to be in a silver category. Our worst attendance is over 10k higher than the macs best. We average double what their best team does. If you don't see the difference than you don't understand the issues with those of us in purgatory