A lot of good insights and discussion occurred last go-round...

http://csnbbs.com/thread-714053.html

Had the opportunity while in and out of airport terminals in-route to mom's to consider and address some of the specific areas of concern that had been raised. While the key elements remain, it allowed me to engineer some significant tweaks accordingly.

(See the red type if you want to jump to the most significant tweak.)

As stated in the last disclaimer, 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.

So, here ya go... ready those rotten tomatoes... but preferably, don't just shoot it down on first glance--rather give it some study and offer feedback as to where you think it sucks (still).

I've got to say I am impressed by your tenacity. Of course, I don't like this "improved" version any better than the last, but it's your thread, so enjoy.

Just one last comment and I'll move along quietly. You made an emphasized point that it would all, repeat all, be decided on the field. However, under conference champions you state that they will be decided by voters. Herein lies one of the biggest fallacies of your plan, which is the butchering of conferences. Schools choose to align themselves with conferences for many reasons, but not the least of those is the right to determine what other schools to be associated with, which schools they will play during their regular season and and which schools they do not not wish to play. That right of self-determination makes this whole exercise moot as few, if any, schools would agree to a plan that relinquishes that right to another party.

(12-26-2014 11:38 PM)Zombiewoof Wrote:  I've got to say I am impressed by your tenacity. Of course, I don't like this "improved" version any better than the last, but it's your thread, so enjoy.

Just one last comment and I'll move along quietly. You made an emphasized point that it would all, repeat all, be decided on the field. However, under conference champions you state that they will be decided by voters. Herein lies one of the biggest fallacies of your plan, which is the butchering of conferences. Schools choose to align themselves with conferences for many reasons, but not the least of those is the right to determine what other schools to be associated with, which schools they will play during their regular season and and which schools they do not not wish to play. That right of self-determination makes this whole exercise moot as few, if any, schools would agree to a plan that relinquishes that right to another party.

1. Tenacity?... thanks.

2. All decided on the field?... yes, the national championship is the priority.

3. Conferences?... pleeeeease... don't be too quick to dismiss this when, in fact, as things are, many schools in 14-team conferences... SEC in particular b/c of the way they've chosen to construct their format... won't see each other on the field for a regular season game for literally several years. (Not to mention all of the contrived "rivalry" games.)

Juxtapose that with this system which essentially allows conferences to year-to-year slotting schools into scheduling pools (aka, divisions) as they think best and desire most.

PS... Thanks for a generally cordial and thoughtful reply.

My challenge with your solution is still the same as what your original post was. It's extremely difficult to win conf twice in a row and beat the next team up. Unless everyone gets the same resources or the NFL via collective bargaining we will be in the same cycle. Ucf did it recently after turnover but that's the exception not the rule. You generally need 3 to 4 years of recruiting to go from a team to a stallwart program. Thanks for the effort and good luck

(12-31-2014 07:55 PM)Knightbengal Wrote:  My challenge with your solution is still the same as what your original post was. It's extremely difficult to win conf twice in a row and beat the next team up. Unless everyone gets the same resources or the NFL via collective bargaining we will be in the same cycle. Ucf did it recently after turnover but that's the exception not the rule. You generally need 3 to 4 years of recruiting to go from a team to a stallwart program. Thanks for the effort and good luck

Thanks for the response.

Let's just take UCF's situation, pretending next the new framework had been implemented this 2014 season...

To gain Gold Division status, they would need to have (a) emerged as champions of a division that in 2014 primarily was stocked by either Sun Belt or former Sun Belt teams, plus USF... (b) pull off a win in 2015, knowing what we know today, over a Miami Hurricanes team... and (c ) emerge as champions of what essentially would likely be that same division in 2015.

Zooming out, I'm open to tweaks in this regard, but whatever the process is, it needs to find some good balance between being fairly simple for people to get their minds around, and being sufficiently difficult that achieving Gold Division status is meaningful and rightful--you don't want to characteristically see programs lucking into that. They need to go through some gauntlet that establishes them as rightfully taking up that space.

So, I'm just suggesting that being the undeniable best of a Silver division two years in a row and having defeated the #8 Gold seemingly justifies their being elevated to Gold and its greatly-expanded playoff opportunities (28 of 32 slots).

(12-26-2014 11:09 PM)_sturt_ Wrote:  A lot of good insights and discussion occurred last go-round...

http://csnbbs.com/thread-714053.html

Had the opportunity while in and out of airport terminals in-route to mom's to consider and address some of the specific areas of concern that had been raised. While the key elements remain, it allowed me to engineer some significant tweaks accordingly.

(See the red type if you want to jump to the most significant tweak.)

As stated in the last disclaimer, 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.

So, here ya go... ready those rotten tomatoes... but preferably, don't just shoot it down on first glance--rather give it some study and offer feedback as to where you think it sucks (still).

EDIT:
Apparently pointing out that this is a mess offended the conscious of several posters, so I'll elaborate:

1. Tearing out the B1G's heart and putting it with the BIG EAST is dumb for several reasons. A) it creates unbalanced OB divisions B) many of the schools that want to play each other aren't C) there are substantial in-division cultural schisms

2. The Peach Bowl divisions are incredibly unbalanced and their setup shoves SEC east teams west, annihilating some big rivalries and substituting them with a setup that UF would fight tooth and nail to stop. Also, knocking WFU out of the ACC in favor of WVU would be a MAJOR issue for the other 3 Carolina teams, even if there is a promotion system.

3. The Cotton Bowl American division is just a random listing of mostly SEC teams that Tennessee would fight tooth and nail to avoid, and the national division ends the UT-OU in-conference rivalry. Depending on how many OOC games these schools have, that might be a problem.

4. Cutting up the California 4 and replacing them with schools like Texas A&M, Baylor, and Texas Tech isn't going to fly. I don't think that most of the Cali 4 and the Texas 4 have any real interest in playing each other in-conference. Also, knocking USC out of the Pac in favor of Utah, a Pac newbie, would be a major issue for a number of reasons.

In short, this seems like a loose listing of schools by geography without any real consideration to rivalries, culture, desire to play, competitive balance, recruiting, and really anything else, hence the .

You would be MUCH better off looking at which schools want to play each other and creating a framework from that without preset brackets.

And the conference slotting idea is needlessly complicated and stiff - I'm not even going to touch that aspect in great detail. I see a HUGE amount of downside and very little upside. Anyone who has taken econ 101 can tell you why it is incredibly illogical. Constraining choices generally minimizes utility.

My advice is to nuke, lose the slotting idea, lose the preset bowl idea (have a seeding system instead), and rebuild.

A little additional info in case it helps the framework to be clarified...

The pools as put forward here are based on 2014-15's CFP configuration. Pool names in 2015-16 and 2016-17, therefore, would look this way...

2015-16
Peach Bowl Pool (Northeast)
Sugar Bowl Pool (Southeast)
(Pool Champions to Orange Bowl)

Fiesta Bowl Pool (Central)
Rose Bowl Pool (West)
(Pool Champions to Cotton Bowl)

2016-17
Orange Bowl Pool (Northeast)
Sugar Bowl Pool (Southeast)
(Pool Champions to Peach Bowl)

Cotton Bowl Pool (Central)
Rose Bowl Pool (West)
(Pool Champions to Fiesta Bowl)

sturt.... I appreciate the improvement, but I still think your proposal is not practical…. You are grouping schools together as if all the schools would agree with this arrangement—not to mention the GORs and TV contracts. You need to adjust your proposal in my opinion that allows the conferences to remain the same. I gave you a suggestion in your other thread using the B10 and SEC….

(01-03-2015 01:50 PM)Underdog Wrote:  sturt.... I appreciate the improvement, but I still think your proposal is not practical…. You are grouping schools together as if all the schools would agree with this arrangement—not to mention the GORs and TV contracts. You need to adjust your proposal in my opinion that allows the conferences to remain the same. I gave you a suggestion in your other thread using the B10 and SEC….

Different paradigm, udog. Hope you'll re-read, particularly where it says "conference slotting." Conferences slot their teams into 16-team regular season pools.

There are inherent thick-wall obstacles that unfortunately go along with the idea of maintaining these obtuse, mathematically-constrained 10, 11, 12, 13 and 14 team scheduling pools. In the pursuit of brainstorming ways to improve the system, seems everyone starts their FBS redesigns by re-shaping the conferences... but, speaking of pragmatism, the pragmatic problem there is a financial one--who wants to share their revenues with schools that they don't want to be part of their membership in the first place? No one. And that's what steers all of the conventional ideas posted on boards like this off into the ditch.

So... the core idea here is... not to impose on conferences that way... but to re-think how we think about the regular season schedule, and how that fits with the post-season.

We don't tear down the conference, but instead, allow conferences to place their teams into mathematically-logical pools for regular season play, that then naturally lead into mathematically-logical sets of teams for a post-season tournament.

(01-03-2015 02:11 PM)_sturt_ Wrote:  

(01-03-2015 01:50 PM)Underdog Wrote:  sturt.... I appreciate the improvement, but I still think your proposal is not practical…. You are grouping schools together as if all the schools would agree with this arrangement—not to mention the GORs and TV contracts. You need to adjust your proposal in my opinion that allows the conferences to remain the same. I gave you a suggestion in your other thread using the B10 and SEC….

Different paradigm, udog. Hope you'll re-read, particularly where it says "conference slotting." Conferences slot their teams into 16-team regular season pools.

There are inherent thick-wall obstacles with the idea of maintaining these obtuse, mathematically-constrained 10, 11, 12, 13 and 14 team pools. Everyone wants to re-shape the conferences as a result, but the pragmatic problem there is a financial one--who wants to share their revenues with schools that they don't want to be part of their membership in the first place?

So... the core idea here is... not to impose on conferences that way... but to re-think how we think about the regular season schedule, and how that fits with the post-season.

We don't tear down the conference, but instead, allow conferences to place their teams into mathematically-logical pools for regular season play, that then naturally lead into mathematically-logical sets of teams for a post-season tournament.

I also see the word "Division" used repeatedly in your diagram….

(01-03-2015 02:20 PM)Underdog Wrote:  

(01-03-2015 02:11 PM)_sturt_ Wrote:  

(01-03-2015 01:50 PM)Underdog Wrote:  sturt.... I appreciate the improvement, but I still think your proposal is not practical…. You are grouping schools together as if all the schools would agree with this arrangement—not to mention the GORs and TV contracts. You need to adjust your proposal in my opinion that allows the conferences to remain the same. I gave you a suggestion in your other thread using the B10 and SEC….

Different paradigm, udog. Hope you'll re-read, particularly where it says "conference slotting." Conferences slot their teams into 16-team regular season pools.

There are inherent thick-wall obstacles that unfortunately go along with the idea of maintaining these obtuse, mathematically-constrained 10, 11, 12, 13 and 14 team scheduling pools. In the pursuit of brainstorming ways to improve the system, seems everyone starts their FBS redesigns by re-shaping the conferences... but, speaking of pragmatism, the pragmatic problem there is a financial one--who wants to share their revenues with schools that they don't want to be part of their membership in the first place? No one. And that's what steers all of the conventional ideas posted on boards like this off into the ditch.

So... the core idea here is... not to impose on conferences that way... but to re-think how we think about the regular season schedule, and how that fits with the post-season.

We don't tear down the conference, but instead, allow conferences to place their teams into mathematically-logical pools for regular season play, that then naturally lead into mathematically-logical sets of teams for a post-season tournament.

I also see the word "Division" used repeatedly in your diagram….

I'd be open to a different term if you think it miscommunicates the general idea. I toyed with the idea of "competition pod."

(01-03-2015 02:46 PM)_sturt_ Wrote:  

(01-03-2015 02:20 PM)Underdog Wrote:  

(01-03-2015 02:11 PM)_sturt_ Wrote:  

(01-03-2015 01:50 PM)Underdog Wrote:  sturt.... I appreciate the improvement, but I still think your proposal is not practical…. You are grouping schools together as if all the schools would agree with this arrangement—not to mention the GORs and TV contracts. You need to adjust your proposal in my opinion that allows the conferences to remain the same. I gave you a suggestion in your other thread using the B10 and SEC….

Different paradigm, udog. Hope you'll re-read, particularly where it says "conference slotting." Conferences slot their teams into 16-team regular season pools.

There are inherent thick-wall obstacles with the idea of maintaining these obtuse, mathematically-constrained 10, 11, 12, 13 and 14 team pools. Everyone wants to re-shape the conferences as a result, but the pragmatic problem there is a financial one--who wants to share their revenues with schools that they don't want to be part of their membership in the first place?

So... the core idea here is... not to impose on conferences that way... but to re-think how we think about the regular season schedule, and how that fits with the post-season.

We don't tear down the conference, but instead, allow conferences to place their teams into mathematically-logical pools for regular season play, that then naturally lead into mathematically-logical sets of teams for a post-season tournament.

I also see the word "Division" used repeatedly in your diagram….

I'd be open to a different term if you think it miscommunicates the general idea. I toyed with the idea of "competition pod."

The word "Division" accurately communicates what you’ve proposed:



How do you think a G5 school in a Silver Division can be promoted and a P5 school in a Gold Division demoted without violating GORs and TV contracts? Moreover, why would the P5 even agree to such a proposal?

Nothing's going to happen until 2025 anyhow... for the most part (B1G lone exception), TV contracts and GORs are locked-in... what I'm talking about might not even be palatable (notice I don't say "workable") in 2025, and certainly can't be enacted until that next break in the FBS timeline. So yeah, anything like this would have to be encoded into such contracts as they are newly developed... which ostensibly would be written anticipating this new-and-improved structure.

And why would the con5 conferences agree?

Well, again... palatable is a key word... I'm only sure that we're progressing toward a more egalitarian sport, not unlike I'm only sure that we're progressing toward a more egalitarian society... I can't speak how rapidly the progress will continue, but only can show how it has, indeed, progressed over the years and decades.

That non-con5 schools automatically get a slot today in what once was only a country club for the con5 schools... ie, the elite bowls... is an example you've probably seen me point out. I believe that if we progress in the next 15 years to the extent that we progressed in the most recent 15 years, we're going to see the opportunities extended to the non-con5 schools to excel flourish (...not necessarily the outcomes, b/c you're always going to have revenue/resource disparities that prevent that).

So... given that preface, and no-doubt your patience (hehe), I'll answer your question now... for the same reasons you've seen pressure mount and enthusiasm swell for a mere 4-team playoff--that, in spite of all of the stodgy old-school authorities like Bill Hancock who were forever telling us that a playoff would never happen--I believe we can imagine, at least, what a legitimate, mathematically-logical system would look like 15-30 years from now.

And that's what this is.

(01-03-2015 03:11 PM)_sturt_ Wrote:  I'd start my answer with this... nothing's going to happen until 2025 anyhow... for the most part (B1G lone exception), TV contracts and GORs are locked-in... what I'm talking about might not even be palatable (notice I don't say "workable") in 2025, and certainly can't be enacted until that next break in the FBS timeline. So yeah, anything like this would have to be encoded into such contracts as they are newly developed.

And why would the con5 conferences agree?

Well, again... palatable is a key word... I'm only sure that we're progressing toward a more egalitarian sport, not unlike I'm only sure that we're progressing toward a more egalitarian society... I can't speak how rapidly the progress will continue, but only can show how it has, indeed, progressed over the years and decades.

That non-con5 schools automatically get a slot today in what once was only a country club for the con5 schools... ie, the elite bowls... is an example you've probably seen me point out. I believe that if we progress in the next 15 years to the extent that we progressed in the most recent 15 years, we're going to see the opportunities extended to the non-con5 schools to excel flourish (...not necessarily the outcomes, b/c you're always going to have revenue/resource disparities that prevent that).

So, for the same reasons you've seen pressure mount and enthusiasm swell for a mere 4-team playoff--that, in spite of all of the stodgy old-school authorities like Bill Hancock who were forever telling us that a playoff would never happen--I believe we can imagine, at least, what a legitimate, mathematically-logical system would look like 15-30 years from now.

And that's what this is.

I’ll address the bold and underlined parts above to further illustrate why your proposal is not practical in its current form in my opinion:

Conferences’ GORs and TV contracts would have to expire at the same time. Therefore, when 2025 arrives, your proposal would encounter the same problem that exists today. You are also overlooking a very important fact—certain schools only want to be associated with other schools. Consequently, a school like Ohio St would never agree to possibly being demoted to a lower division. Furthermore, another reason why P5 and G5 schools are in the same conferences is because the networks are paying for these conferences to exist as they are. As a result, you have to address the association and network issues before further modifying your proposal. Nevertheless, I believe certain B12 schools will eventually be in other conferences after its GOR expires. What remains of the B12 will raid other G5 conferences….

(01-03-2015 03:51 PM)Underdog Wrote:  Conferences’ GORs and TV contracts would have to expire at the same time. Therefore, when 2025 arrives, your proposal would encounter the same problem that exists today.

I somewhat misspoke because the GORs are not really the problem... no one is changing conferences, so that part is moot.

The problem, to the extent that it is one, is exclusively a TV contract one. I say "to the extent that it is one," because, if you consider these examples...







...there's really no empirical weakening of schedules, particularly where the Gold schools are concerned... and to the contrary, as noted I think in this thread's original post, conferences end up with added flexibility unimpeded by some unnatural division constraints and convoluted "rivalry" games compelled by those divisions.

(01-03-2015 03:51 PM)Underdog Wrote:  You are also overlooking a very important fact—certain schools only want to be associated with other schools. Consequently, a school like Ohio St would never agree to possibly being demoted to a lower division.

Well, first, I doubt that the Ohio States are going to be feeling all that vulnerable.

Perhaps a more practical example to your point would be an Indiana or a Northwestern (?).

But what you've brought up here is exactly where the egalitarian rubber meets the road...

You have FBS as a division, and as we continue to see it grow to be more and more routine that a Boise takes down a #10 school and more commonly a Houston take down a Pitt kind of school... it becomes exceedingly less defensible for there to be this artificial... dare I say, back of the bus... stereotype that keeps the Indianas and their ilk in their protected status.

People were amazed in 1998 to see Tulane beat against the glass ceiling, and then Marshall the year after that... and since that time, it's went from that trickle to a common occurrence... I submit that things have happened in recent years that were thought to be unrealistic and not pragmatic back then, and similarly, we shouldn't be dismissive to think that in 2030 we will be able to look back to this time and say the same.

And too, before leaving this point, I'd emphasize that being relegated to Silver status only means playing 7 Silver teams in the region for the next two seasons. It isn't permanent, and in fact, since con5 schools have the resources that they do, it is reasonable to think that a given school would emerge to champion their Silver Division sooner or later and regain Gold status.

(01-03-2015 03:51 PM)Underdog Wrote:  Furthermore, another reason why P5 and G5 schools are in the same conferences is because the networks are paying for these conferences to exist as they are. As a result, you have to address the association and network issues before further modifying your proposal.

Actually, that's not really the case (ie, "have to address...")

Couple of empirical points for you to consider.

First, in spite of all of the changes to CUSA's membership, there was no contract renegotiation forced even by more than 50% of members being new... which suggests that contracts are built with some escalating/de-escalating clauses to accommodate for changes in membership.

But more important and direct to your point... to be more precise, "the networks are paying for" audience-producing match-ups that they can sell to advertisers. Yes, they desire some stability there, but if anything, if you take a closer look, this arrangement just helps them target their audiences to an even higher degree than they can in relying on current scheduling... thank you Big XII WVU and SEC Missouri and, to some degree, B1G Rutgers.

It's a given that it's the nature of negotiations that two sides decide how to structure their agreement and the compensation due based on that structure. That's nothing new. And just like they always have, they'd do that in this case.

(01-03-2015 03:51 PM)Underdog Wrote:  Nevertheless, I believe certain B12 schools will eventually be in other conferences after its GOR expires. What remains of the B12 will raid other G5 conferences….

And then? Is that college football nirvana? Will we have reached a place where we can feel good about it all? Pardon my perspective, but I don't see how we should. The system then just continues to be as faulty as it ever was. Just a new edition of faulty-ness.

To resolve the fundamental problems with this system, we have to parse away the scheduling problems inherent with these 10, 11, 12, 13 and 14 sized groups that, in turn, keep us from getting to what every other sports association in the world has... a path for every team to its championship, competitors determined by preordained criteria, and by virtue of results on the field of play.

We are being reasonable when we expect MLB to place 5 teams in a division, and 3 divisions to a league... we are being reasonable when we expect NBA to do the same... and for the NFL to have 4 teams in 4 divisions in each of the two leagues. It is sensible. It is fair. And particularly in a sport that can't practically be played anymore than once a week and where you have a calendar that obligates you to confine the schedule to about 4 months, it is only logical.

It's just another form of relegation. That only works for a single sport. I realize this is your "plan for FBS." These schools field an average of 20 teams (guessing). It would be a nightmare to track all those teams with this system.

You put Wake Forest in a silver division but kept teams like Washington State in the gold division. Clearly WF is being punished for being in a more densely populated area.

The competitive balance is way off.

(01-03-2015 04:43 PM)_sturt_ Wrote:  

(01-03-2015 03:51 PM)Underdog Wrote:  Conferences’ GORs and TV contracts would have to expire at the same time. Therefore, when 2025 arrives, your proposal would encounter the same problem that exists today.

I somewhat misspoke because the GORs are not really the problem... no one is changing conferences, so that part is moot.

The problem, to the extent that it is one, is exclusively a TV contract one. I say "to the extent that it is one," because, if you consider these examples...







...there's really no empirical weakening of schedules, particularly where the Gold schools are concerned... and to the contrary, as noted I think in this thread's original post, conferences end up with added flexibility unimpeded by some unnatural division constraints and convoluted "rivalry" games compelled by those divisions.

(01-03-2015 03:51 PM)Underdog Wrote:  You are also overlooking a very important fact—certain schools only want to be associated with other schools. Consequently, a school like Ohio St would never agree to possibly being demoted to a lower division.

Well, first, I doubt that the Ohio States are going to be feeling all that vulnerable.

Perhaps a more practical example to your point would be an Indiana or a Northwestern (?).

But what you've brought up here is exactly where the egalitarian rubber meets the road...

You have FBS as a division, and as we continue to see it grow to be more and more routine that a Boise takes down a #10 school and more commonly a Houston take down a Pitt kind of school... it becomes exceedingly less defensible for there to be this artificial... dare I say, back of the bus... stereotype that keeps the Indianas and their ilk in their protected status.

People were amazed in 1998 to see Tulane beat against the glass ceiling, and then Marshall the year after that... and since that time, it's went from that trickle to a common occurrence... I submit that things have happened in recent years that were thought to be unrealistic and not pragmatic back then, and similarly, we shouldn't be dismissive to think that in 2030 we will be able to look back to this time and say the same.

And too, before leaving this point, I'd emphasize that being relegated to Silver status only means playing 7 Silver teams in the region for the next two seasons. It isn't permanent, and in fact, since con5 schools have the resources that they do, it is reasonable to think that a given school would emerge to champion their Silver Division sooner or later and regain Gold status.

(01-03-2015 03:51 PM)Underdog Wrote:  Furthermore, another reason why P5 and G5 schools are in the same conferences is because the networks are paying for these conferences to exist as they are. As a result, you have to address the association and network issues before further modifying your proposal.

Actually, that's not really the case (ie, "have to address...")

Couple of empirical points for you to consider.

First, in spite of all of the changes to CUSA's membership, there was no contract renegotiation forced even by more than 50% of members being new... which suggests that contracts are built with some escalating/de-escalating clauses to accommodate for changes in membership.

But more important and direct to your point... to be more precise, "the networks are paying for" audience-producing match-ups that they can sell to advertisers. Yes, they desire some stability there, but if anything, if you take a closer look, this arrangement just helps them target their audiences to an even higher degree than they can in relying on current scheduling... thank you Big XII WVU and SEC Missouri and, to some degree, B1G Rutgers.

It's a given that it's the nature of negotiations that two sides decide how to structure their agreement and the compensation due based on that structure. That's nothing new. And just like they always have, they'd do that in this case.

(01-03-2015 03:51 PM)Underdog Wrote:  Nevertheless, I believe certain B12 schools will eventually be in other conferences after its GOR expires. What remains of the B12 will raid other G5 conferences….

And then? Is that college football nirvana? Will we have reached a place where we can feel good about it all? Pardon my perspective, but I don't see how we should. The system then just continues to be as faulty as it ever was. Just a new edition of faulty-ness.

To resolve the fundamental problems with this system, we have to parse away the scheduling problems inherent with these 10, 11, 12, 13 and 14 sized groups that, in turn, keep us from getting to what every other sports association in the world has... a path for every team to its championship, competitors determined by preordained criteria, and by virtue of results on the field of play.

sturt….. It appears (I could be wrong) that you are becoming increasingly defensive with me instead of addressing what I've pointed out as obvious obstacles in your proposal. I have also taken time out of my life—that I’ll never get back—to communicate what I think needs to be addressed. Consequently, please don’t take my responses as attacks on your proposal. Instead, I’m attempting to give you my honest opinion as constructively as I can.

Regarding my opinion of the B12, it would directly affect your proposal if it occurs to the extent that it would render your proposal impractical and require total revision to it Therefore, its relevant and significant enough to consider since your proposal is expected to possibly occur around 2025 or later…..

(01-03-2015 05:06 PM)Wolfman Wrote:  It's just another form of relegation. That only works for a single sport. I realize this is your "plan for FBS." These schools field an average of 20 teams (guessing). It would be a nightmare to track all those teams with this system.

I think we're missing each other here, Wolf.

Please re-read, if you have interest enough to do so. For now I'll just emphasize that this is not an overhaul of conferences, and indeed, it is only for FBS, period.

(01-03-2015 05:10 PM)Underdog Wrote:  sturt….. You are becoming increasingly defensive with me instead of addressing the obvious obstacles in your proposal. I have taken time out of my life—that I’ll never get back—to communicate what I think needs to be addressed. Consequently, please don’t take my responses as attacks on your proposal. Instead, I’m attempting to give you my honest opinion as constructively as I can.

Udog, I'm sorry that the tone comes across that way. I try but am not always successful in being matter-of-fact without seeming defensive.

If I may, it's not so much that I'm defensive in actual attitude as it is that I'm trying to explain that what you're bringing to light I've sometimes already thought about... and I offer you, then, some insight into why I decided to take the approach taken.

Essentially, I accept some premises as a matter of even taking up the topic, and if those premises aren't accepted by the reader, then by fault of neither the reader nor myself, we're just never going to get on the same page... the fundamental assumptions and/or goals have to line-up.

(01-03-2015 05:10 PM)Underdog Wrote:  Regarding my opinion of the B12, it would directly affect your proposal if it occurs to the extent that it would render your proposal impractical and require total revision to it Therefore, its relevant and significant enough to consider since your proposal is expected to possibly occur around 2025 or later…..

Glad you assert that b/c it gives me opportunity to try again to respond in a matter-of-fact way, but hopefully this time without what's been perceived as defensiveness... ie, just because I offer a defense of why I've thought the way I've thought doesn't mean I have to come across as being abrasive in doing so, right?

(In fact, that you posed the question as you did hints to me that there's probably something I'm failing to communicate effectively.)

So would it affect the proposal if the BXII had different members, and it then raided the non-con5 to make up for it?

Yes, it would affect the implementation, but not fundamentally change the structure, because in fact, the structure is even designed in a way that accommodates such evolution.

To be precise, (1) there would be a recalibration of slots... presumably, if I take your scenario correctly, some conferences would rob the BXII of some of their Gold slots... and (2) assuming the plan had not already been agreed-upon-in-principle and anticipated for the 2025 renegotiation, the plan would accommodate whatever number over 64 in the same way that it does as already spelled-out using Wake Forest as the first #65... assuming for the sake of discussion two new BXII members from the non-con5, then in any given season, three of the five con5 conferences would rotate one of their members into play in a Silver Division... on the other hand, if the plan had already been enacted, the BXII would then rob some of the predominantly Silver conferences of some number of their slots, with a key point being that those schools remain Silver unless/until earn promotion to Gold status.

(Zooming out, where conferences are concerned, the whole expansion motivation changes with this. I believe it would, in fact, only promote stability since conferences have some inherent TV market flexibility... but I'll save that whole discussion for another post at another log-in since time is getting short and some honey-do's... namely taking down Christmas decorations... await.)