(05-06-2017 01:59 PM)MplsBison Wrote:  

(05-06-2017 01:22 PM)miko33 Wrote:  ACFC (American College Football Conference)

ACFC North
Michigan
Ohio State
Wisconsin
Michigan State

ACFC South
Tennessee
Clemson
Louisiana State
Texas A&M

ACFC East
Penn State
Notre Dame
Florida State
Virginia Tech

ACFC West
Washington
Oregon
Stanford
Cal Berkely

NCFC North
Oklahoma
Nebraska
Iowa
Kansas

NCFC South
Alabama
Auburn
Georgia
Florida

NCFC East
North Carolina
Rutgers
Georgia
Texas

NCFC West
Southern Cal
UCLA
Arizona
Colorado

You do this along with setting up a recruit draft where the poorest performing schools get to draft first and the best draft last so as to set up a highly competitive environment, and you have some league wide revenue sharing system to also ensure access to the best coaches and facilities...this would make more money than any other possible set up you could think of in the existing system for the current top subdivision in college football. By far.

The idea is just fine. I especially love the part about replicating the NFL Draft with the high school/JUCO/etc draft, and introducing parity, instead of the reverse parity we have now where the best schools get the best players.


But it's simply DOA unless you go 64. We're sitting at 65 now with Notre Dame included, so one school gets the axe. They can live with that. Or you could go eight divisions of nine ... which gives eight "division" games. That bumps it up to 72 and you can squeeze in a few more that might well be deserving like Houston, USF, Cincy, UConn, Boise, BYU, CO St, etc.

Why should it be? The goal is for the system to maximize earnings. Keeping 64 doesn't do that. First off, it dilutes the product. Second, there would be too much heterogeneity among this group where those schools at position #40 and higher could never compete even with parity imposed on the group. The system would be even better if the teams separated from the schools themselves and were able to fully concentrate on the sports side without having to worry about academics at all. You can still maintain some loose affiliation between schools and the teams. For example, you could have a team called the Austin Longhorns (sponsored by the U of Texas).

(05-06-2017 02:23 PM)miko33 Wrote:  The goal is for the system to maximize earnings. Keeping 64 doesn't do that. First off, it dilutes the product. Second, there would be too much heterogeneity among this group where those schools at position #40 and higher could never compete even with parity imposed on the group.

You haven't said anything wrong, so far here.

But since when is the right thing automatically politically viable?

(05-06-2017 02:23 PM)miko33 Wrote:  The system would be even better if the teams separated from the schools themselves and were able to fully concentrate on the sports side without having to worry about academics at all. You can still maintain some loose affiliation between schools and the teams. For example, you could have a team called the Austin Longhorns (sponsored by the U of Texas).

It would probably take that level of disruption to the current system to make this possible.

Perhaps the Kessler lawsuit is the first step towards that.

(05-06-2017 02:27 PM)MplsBison Wrote:  

(05-06-2017 02:23 PM)miko33 Wrote:  The goal is for the system to maximize earnings. Keeping 64 doesn't do that. First off, it dilutes the product. Second, there would be too much heterogeneity among this group where those schools at position #40 and higher could never compete even with parity imposed on the group.

You haven't said anything wrong, so far here.

But since when is the right thing automatically politically viable?

(05-06-2017 02:23 PM)miko33 Wrote:  The system would be even better if the teams separated from the schools themselves and were able to fully concentrate on the sports side without having to worry about academics at all. You can still maintain some loose affiliation between schools and the teams. For example, you could have a team called the Austin Longhorns (sponsored by the U of Texas).

It would probably take that level of disruption to the current system to make this possible.

Perhaps the Kessler lawsuit is the first step towards that.

If we want a fantasy thread about a different conference model start one. The thread splitting feature isn't working for the mods yet. So take this talk to the PM and let's get back to the discussion of the network valuations.

Thanks. I didn't mean for a mildly humorous post on my part to go this far.

(05-06-2017 02:34 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(05-06-2017 02:27 PM)MplsBison Wrote:  

(05-06-2017 02:23 PM)miko33 Wrote:  The goal is for the system to maximize earnings. Keeping 64 doesn't do that. First off, it dilutes the product. Second, there would be too much heterogeneity among this group where those schools at position #40 and higher could never compete even with parity imposed on the group.

You haven't said anything wrong, so far here.

But since when is the right thing automatically politically viable?

(05-06-2017 02:23 PM)miko33 Wrote:  The system would be even better if the teams separated from the schools themselves and were able to fully concentrate on the sports side without having to worry about academics at all. You can still maintain some loose affiliation between schools and the teams. For example, you could have a team called the Austin Longhorns (sponsored by the U of Texas).

It would probably take that level of disruption to the current system to make this possible.

Perhaps the Kessler lawsuit is the first step towards that.

If we want a fantasy thread about a different conference model start one. The thread splitting feature isn't working for the mods yet. So take this talk to the PM and let's get back to the discussion of the network valuations.

Thanks. I didn't mean for a mildly humorous post on my part to go this far.

From your lips to my ears. It is done.