CSNbbs

It has become obvious that in order to have the symmetry necessary to have any kind of workable playoff structure (4, 6 12, or 16) all conferences need to adopt the same structure.

Since the NB12 plans to elevate 4 schools and adding Notre Dame on a full time basis takes us beyond 4 x 16, the next logical step would be 4 x 18. Unfortunately 5 conferences can't survive and have any type of logical division to advance the playoffs in an organized fashion.

This may not be perfect, but it should illustrate how conferences could be organized to allow for a rational playoff system so that every school could be involved and therefore profit from the system.

ACC
adds: UCF, West Virginia, Tulane, Houston

B1G
adds: Notre Dame, Cincinnati, Iowa State, Kansas

SEC
adds: USF, Baylor

PAC
adds: San Diego State, BYU, Kansas State, Oklahoma State, Texas Tech, TCU

I still like the traditional division approach, but with 18 teams those divisions could be either 2 x 9 or 3 x 6.

Tulane over Temple? Now that's just anti-North.

(06-04-2022 11:19 AM)schmolik Wrote: [ -> ]Tulane over Temple? Now that's just anti-North.

Nah. Crime in Nola is a misdemeanor compared to the capital murder in Philly.

Location, location, location!

2X2 by 12 makes more sense than 18. Divvy up the ACC, ND, UConn, WVU and UCF between the Big 10 and SEC. Big 12 adds 2-Memphis and Colorado St.? and combines with Pac 12.

So you have 6 conferences, but 3 groups-Pacific, Southeast and Northeast.

(06-04-2022 11:19 AM)schmolik Wrote: [ -> ]Tulane over Temple? Now that's just anti-North.

Nope......Southern Ivy.

(06-04-2022 10:34 AM)XLance Wrote: [ -> ]It has become obvious that in order to have the symmetry necessary to have any kind of workable playoff structure (4, 6 12, or 16) all conferences need to adopt the same structure.

Why does there need to be symmetry to have a workable playoff structure? And if you are looking for symmetry, why would one of your options be for 6 teams?

If your premise is wrong, chances are your solution will be as well.

(06-04-2022 04:54 PM)XLance Wrote: [ -> ]

(06-04-2022 11:19 AM)schmolik Wrote: [ -> ]Tulane over Temple? Now that's just anti-North.

Nope......Southern Ivy.

Oh now the ACC cares about academics? Didn't care when it was UConn vs. Louisville and certainly don't care if they're taking a school with a lower USN&WR ranking than Wilkes University. Yeah and you still said "Southern".

(06-04-2022 04:54 PM)XLance Wrote: [ -> ]

(06-04-2022 11:19 AM)schmolik Wrote: [ -> ]Tulane over Temple? Now that's just anti-North.

Nope......Southern Ivy.

That's the problem with the ACC right there!!!! No, picking Temple is not the fix. It is the way the ACC's profile is. What the heck does the ACC represent??

I can tell you what the SEC represents: every major university in the southeast, excluding those in the ACC.

The SunBelt represents the second best state universities in the southeast, IMO.

The ACC, to me is one big giant blob. Part wants to be Southern Ivy, part wants to be like the SEC, and rest are northern schools!!

(06-04-2022 06:57 PM)DawgNBama Wrote: [ -> ]

(06-04-2022 04:54 PM)XLance Wrote: [ -> ]

(06-04-2022 11:19 AM)schmolik Wrote: [ -> ]Tulane over Temple? Now that's just anti-North.

Nope......Southern Ivy.

That's the problem with the ACC right there!!!! No, picking Temple is not the fix. It is the way the ACC's profile is. What the heck does the ACC represent??

I can tell you what the SEC represents: every major university in the southeast, excluding those in the ACC.

The SunBelt represents the second best state universities in the southeast, IMO.

The ACC, to me is one big giant blob. Part wants to be Southern Ivy, part wants to be like the SEC, and rest are northern schools!!

All of those East Indys should have carved out a whole new conference. No old school clique telling all the others that are used to do things their way what to do.

(06-04-2022 07:43 PM)Porcine Wrote: [ -> ]

(06-04-2022 06:57 PM)DawgNBama Wrote: [ -> ]

(06-04-2022 04:54 PM)XLance Wrote: [ -> ]

(06-04-2022 11:19 AM)schmolik Wrote: [ -> ]Tulane over Temple? Now that's just anti-North.

Nope......Southern Ivy.

That's the problem with the ACC right there!!!! No, picking Temple is not the fix. It is the way the ACC's profile is. What the heck does the ACC represent??

I can tell you what the SEC represents: every major university in the southeast, excluding those in the ACC.

The SunBelt represents the second best state universities in the southeast, IMO.

The ACC, to me is one big giant blob. Part wants to be Southern Ivy, part wants to be like the SEC, and rest are northern schools!!

All of those East Indys should have carved out a whole new conference. No old school clique telling all the others that are used to do things their way what to do.

To me, that only solves part of the problem, which, I stated was threefold.

The Magnolia League/Conference should have been allowed to form. Then everything else would have fit into place. Clemson was an ACC misfit for years, but kept soldiering on as a square peg in a round hole rather than taking the time to find the square hole (a more football focused conference) for their square peg. FSU should have rolled the dice on the SEC rather than join the conference with an identity crisis (ACC), IMO.

(06-04-2022 08:04 PM)DawgNBama Wrote: [ -> ]

(06-04-2022 07:43 PM)Porcine Wrote: [ -> ]

(06-04-2022 06:57 PM)DawgNBama Wrote: [ -> ]

(06-04-2022 04:54 PM)XLance Wrote: [ -> ]

(06-04-2022 11:19 AM)schmolik Wrote: [ -> ]Tulane over Temple? Now that's just anti-North.

Nope......Southern Ivy.

That's the problem with the ACC right there!!!! No, picking Temple is not the fix. It is the way the ACC's profile is. What the heck does the ACC represent??

I can tell you what the SEC represents: every major university in the southeast, excluding those in the ACC.

The SunBelt represents the second best state universities in the southeast, IMO.

The ACC, to me is one big giant blob. Part wants to be Southern Ivy, part wants to be like the SEC, and rest are northern schools!!

All of those East Indys should have carved out a whole new conference. No old school clique telling all the others that are used to do things their way what to do.

To me, that only solves part of the problem, which, I stated was threefold.

The Magnolia League/Conference should have been allowed to form. Then everything else would have fit into place. Clemson was an ACC misfit for years, but kept soldiering on as a square peg in a round hole rather than taking the time to find the square hole (a more football focused conference) for their square peg. FSU should have rolled the dice on the SEC rather than join the conference with an identity crisis (ACC), IMO.

That eastern conference would include Florida State and Clemson. According JR, FSU and Clemson had a chance at the SEC and blew it.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1990_NCAA_...all_season
Going into 1991, they could have put together a solid conference even if it was just a scheduling agreement.

(06-04-2022 11:43 PM)Porcine Wrote: [ -> ]

(06-04-2022 08:04 PM)DawgNBama Wrote: [ -> ]

(06-04-2022 07:43 PM)Porcine Wrote: [ -> ]

(06-04-2022 06:57 PM)DawgNBama Wrote: [ -> ]

(06-04-2022 04:54 PM)XLance Wrote: [ -> ]Nope......Southern Ivy.

That's the problem with the ACC right there!!!! No, picking Temple is not the fix. It is the way the ACC's profile is. What the heck does the ACC represent??

I can tell you what the SEC represents: every major university in the southeast, excluding those in the ACC.

The SunBelt represents the second best state universities in the southeast, IMO.

The ACC, to me is one big giant blob. Part wants to be Southern Ivy, part wants to be like the SEC, and rest are northern schools!!

All of those East Indys should have carved out a whole new conference. No old school clique telling all the others that are used to do things their way what to do.

To me, that only solves part of the problem, which, I stated was threefold.

The Magnolia League/Conference should have been allowed to form. Then everything else would have fit into place. Clemson was an ACC misfit for years, but kept soldiering on as a square peg in a round hole rather than taking the time to find the square hole (a more football focused conference) for their square peg. FSU should have rolled the dice on the SEC rather than join the conference with an identity crisis (ACC), IMO.

That eastern conference would include Florida State and Clemson. According JR, FSU and Clemson had a chance at the SEC and blew it.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1990_NCAA_...all_season
Going into 1991, they could have put together a solid conference even if it was just a scheduling agreement.

Why do you think I said "and kept soldiering on..." and "should have rolled the dice..."?? I knew that both FSU and Clemson both had a chance at the SEC, and both blew it, and my source....wait for it...was JR.

It's possible that FSU might not have won as many championships as they did in the ACC under Bowden had they joined the SEC, but Bowden didn't take two important things into account, IMO, when he instructed the FSU president to spurn the SEC's offer: the SEC Network and NIL. If he were still alive, I am sure that he would regret his actions now, as Clemson's past leadership would have as well.

(06-04-2022 10:34 AM)XLance Wrote: [ -> ]This may not be perfect, but it should illustrate how conferences could be organized to allow for a rational playoff system so that every school could be involved and therefore profit from the system.

But every school isn't involved. And as long as that is true, then not all of the schools you include need to be involved.

I could see a very rational configuration of schools that would produce a worthy national champion and include all the schools in the two dominant conferences (because no rational playoff can exist without them in it).

B1G:
Ohio State, Notre Dame, Penn State, Pitt, Syracuse, Indiana, Purdue, Maryland, Rutgers
Wisconsin, Michigan, Michigan St, Iowa, Nebraska, Minnesota, Northwestern, Iowa St, Illinois
Oregon, Stanford, Washington, USC, Utah, UCLA, Cal, Arizona, Colorado

SEC:
Alabama, Georgia, Auburn, Florida, South Carolina, Ole Miss, Tennessee, Kentucky, Vandy
Clemson, Florida St, Miami, Virginia Tech, Georgia Tech, UNC, NC State, Duke, Virginia
Oklahoma, LSU, Oklahoma St, Texas A&M, Miss St, Texas, Missouri, Arkansas, Kansas

These two conferences include the top 18 and 19 of the top 20 football programs of the past ten years, all the "name brands", all the basketball blue bloods.

There are enough schools from both the PAC (9) and ACC (12) to dissolve those conferences without waiting for current contracts to expire.

The top two finishers in each division and two at large teams in each conference make a rational 8 team Conference Championship Tournament, and the 2 conference champions make a compelling and logical National Championship game.

(06-05-2022 12:42 AM)DawgNBama Wrote: [ -> ]

(06-04-2022 11:43 PM)Porcine Wrote: [ -> ]

(06-04-2022 08:04 PM)DawgNBama Wrote: [ -> ]

(06-04-2022 07:43 PM)Porcine Wrote: [ -> ]

(06-04-2022 06:57 PM)DawgNBama Wrote: [ -> ]That's the problem with the ACC right there!!!! No, picking Temple is not the fix. It is the way the ACC's profile is. What the heck does the ACC represent??

I can tell you what the SEC represents: every major university in the southeast, excluding those in the ACC.

The SunBelt represents the second best state universities in the southeast, IMO.

The ACC, to me is one big giant blob. Part wants to be Southern Ivy, part wants to be like the SEC, and rest are northern schools!!

All of those East Indys should have carved out a whole new conference. No old school clique telling all the others that are used to do things their way what to do.

To me, that only solves part of the problem, which, I stated was threefold.

The Magnolia League/Conference should have been allowed to form. Then everything else would have fit into place. Clemson was an ACC misfit for years, but kept soldiering on as a square peg in a round hole rather than taking the time to find the square hole (a more football focused conference) for their square peg. FSU should have rolled the dice on the SEC rather than join the conference with an identity crisis (ACC), IMO.

That eastern conference would include Florida State and Clemson. According JR, FSU and Clemson had a chance at the SEC and blew it.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1990_NCAA_...all_season
Going into 1991, they could have put together a solid conference even if it was just a scheduling agreement.

Why do you think I said "and kept soldiering on..." and "should have rolled the dice..."?? I knew that both FSU and Clemson both had a chance at the SEC, and both blew it, and my source....wait for it...was JR.

It's possible that FSU might not have won as many championships as they did in the ACC under Bowden had they joined the SEC, but Bowden didn't take two important things into account, IMO, when he instructed the FSU president to spurn the SEC's offer: the SEC Network and NIL. If he were still alive, I am sure that he would regret his actions now, as Clemson's past leadership would have as well.

Florida State and Clemson being more SEC-like than ACC-like is not some new development. They all knew that 30 years ago. The real facepalm here is those two turning the SEC down only to "soldier on" looking for ....wait for it... an offer to join the SEC.


"The truth knocks on the door and you say, go away, I'm looking for the truth, and it goes away. Puzzling."-Robert M. Pirsig

(06-05-2022 07:13 AM)ken d Wrote: [ -> ]

(06-04-2022 10:34 AM)XLance Wrote: [ -> ]This may not be perfect, but it should illustrate how conferences could be organized to allow for a rational playoff system so that every school could be involved and therefore profit from the system.

But every school isn't involved. And as long as that is true, then not all of the schools you include need to be involved.

I could see a very rational configuration of schools that would produce a worthy national champion and include all the schools in the two dominant conferences (because no rational playoff can exist without them in it).

B1G:
Ohio State, Notre Dame, Penn State, Pitt, Syracuse, Indiana, Purdue, Maryland, Rutgers
Wisconsin, Michigan, Michigan St, Iowa, Nebraska, Minnesota, Northwestern, Iowa St, Illinois
Oregon, Stanford, Washington, USC, Utah, UCLA, Cal, Arizona, Colorado

SEC:
Alabama, Georgia, Auburn, Florida, South Carolina, Ole Miss, Tennessee, Kentucky, Vandy
Clemson, Florida St, Miami, Virginia Tech, Georgia Tech, UNC, NC State, Duke, Virginia
Oklahoma, LSU, Oklahoma St, Texas A&M, Miss St, Texas, Missouri, Arkansas, Kansas

These two conferences leagues of three conferences each, include the top 18 and 19 of the top 20 football programs of the past ten years, all the "name brands", all the basketball blue bloods.

There are enough schools from both the PAC (9) and ACC (12) to dissolve those conferences without waiting for current contracts to expire.

The top two finishers in each division and two at large teams in each conference make a rational 8 team Conference Championship Tournament, and the 2 conference champions make a compelling and logical National Championship game.

You have taken the original proposal and weeded out some of the weaker teams and shifted some others much like the professional leagues.
Your model has two leagues with three nine team conferences which is very workable, as opposed to two leagues with two conferences. With each conference made up of two nine team divisions. I think either could work although I wouldn't expect much change in the hierarchy. Even if the media income would be the same for all 54 teams, the big stadium schools would still have a lot more money to spend and therefore for the most part continue to dominate the standings.
I would assume that each conference would play an 8 game round robin schedule for regional flavor. Would there be any cross over within the leagues (would Clemson still play South Carolina, etc.?) and how would those games be determined?

IMO the simplest (not simple) and most logical (there is no logic in college football) is a P4of 18 teams each. The 4 conferences all would play 10 conference games and 13 games in total. Their 3 other games would be against the other P4. All 4 would be division-less and play a conference semifinal and finals. The winners of the PAC vs B1G in the Rose bowl, and the SEC vs ACC in Sugar bowl. Rose and Sugar winners meet in a national championship.

So in conclusion this would be the top 72 teams broken into 4x18 conferences and a 16 team playoff. Makes to much sense so it definitely won't happen.

(06-05-2022 11:10 AM)XLance Wrote: [ -> ]

(06-05-2022 07:13 AM)ken d Wrote: [ -> ]

(06-04-2022 10:34 AM)XLance Wrote: [ -> ]This may not be perfect, but it should illustrate how conferences could be organized to allow for a rational playoff system so that every school could be involved and therefore profit from the system.

But every school isn't involved. And as long as that is true, then not all of the schools you include need to be involved.

I could see a very rational configuration of schools that would produce a worthy national champion and include all the schools in the two dominant conferences (because no rational playoff can exist without them in it).

B1G:
Ohio State, Notre Dame, Penn State, Pitt, Syracuse, Indiana, Purdue, Maryland, Rutgers
Wisconsin, Michigan, Michigan St, Iowa, Nebraska, Minnesota, Northwestern, Iowa St, Illinois
Oregon, Stanford, Washington, USC, Utah, UCLA, Cal, Arizona, Colorado

SEC:
Alabama, Georgia, Auburn, Florida, South Carolina, Ole Miss, Tennessee, Kentucky, Vandy
Clemson, Florida St, Miami, Virginia Tech, Georgia Tech, UNC, NC State, Duke, Virginia
Oklahoma, LSU, Oklahoma St, Texas A&M, Miss St, Texas, Missouri, Arkansas, Kansas

These two conferences leagues of three conferences each, include the top 18 and 19 of the top 20 football programs of the past ten years, all the "name brands", all the basketball blue bloods.

There are enough schools from both the PAC (9) and ACC (12) to dissolve those conferences without waiting for current contracts to expire.

The top two finishers in each division and two at large teams in each conference make a rational 8 team Conference Championship Tournament, and the 2 conference champions make a compelling and logical National Championship game.

You have taken the original proposal and weeded out some of the weaker teams and shifted some others much like the professional leagues.
Your model has two leagues with three nine team conferences which is very workable, as opposed to two leagues with two conferences. With each conference made up of two nine team divisions. I think either could work although I wouldn't expect much change in the hierarchy. Even if the media income would be the same for all 54 teams, the big stadium schools would still have a lot more money to spend and therefore for the most part continue to dominate the standings.
I would assume that each conference would play an 8 game round robin schedule for regional flavor. Would there be any cross over within the leagues (would Clemson still play South Carolina, etc.?) and how would those games be determined?

I assume there would be an expectation that all 54 of these schools would play at least one P2 game outside their division, but there would be no mandated crossovers. All OOD games could be scheduled by mutual decision. I was surprised how few annual OOD rivalry games there would probably be. I came up with 6:

Ohio State-Michigan
Notre Dame - USC
Georgia - Georgia Tech
Florida - Florida State
South Carolina - Clemson
Ole Miss - Mississippi State

I thought of more rivalry games against schools not in these two conferences.
Kentucky - Louisville
Kansas - Kansas State
UNC - Wake Forest
NC State - Wake Forest
Oregon - Oregon State
Washington - Washington State
Utah - BYU
Arizona - Arizona State
Syracuse - Boston College

I didn't include Notre Dame - Stanford because I assumed the Irish would want more flexibility to play a national schedule. I wouldn't be surprised, however if they scheduled Stanford on the road when they had USC at home at least some of the time. I could see them scheduling Miami, Texas, Oklahoma, Georgia, with enough regularity to ensure that they played at least five or six challenging opponents every year despite being in a relatively weak division.

(06-04-2022 06:57 PM)DawgNBama Wrote: [ -> ]The ACC, to me is one big giant blob.

... other terms for "giant blob" include Franken-conference, crap show and turd sandwich

(06-05-2022 11:23 AM)SouthEastAlaska Wrote: [ -> ]IMO the simplest (not simple) and most logical (there is no logic in college football) is a P4of 18 teams each

So four conferences with the same amount of members should be the objective (i.e., simpler and/or more logical) rather than:

Schools belonging to conferences whereby:

• The conference is amenable to adding it as a member;
  

• The school deems itself a better fit institutionally, culturally and/or geographically;
  

• The school and its athletic program can make more money
  

Is that what you're suggesting?

(06-04-2022 06:57 PM)DawgNBama Wrote: [ -> ]

(06-04-2022 04:54 PM)XLance Wrote: [ -> ]

(06-04-2022 11:19 AM)schmolik Wrote: [ -> ]Tulane over Temple? Now that's just anti-North.

Nope......Southern Ivy.

That's the problem with the ACC right there!!!! No, picking Temple is not the fix. It is the way the ACC's profile is. What the heck does the ACC represent??

I can tell you what the SEC represents: every major university in the southeast, excluding those in the ACC.

The SunBelt represents the second best state universities in the southeast, IMO.

The ACC, to me is one big giant blob. Part wants to be Southern Ivy, part wants to be like the SEC, and rest are northern schools!!

The Sun Belt is a bunch of regional schools. Arkansas St., USM and Georgia St. can claim to be the best non-P5 in their state (2 of those 3 are the only G5), but nobody else in the Sun Belt is close.

There are a number of major private schools not in the SEC or ACC. And given their size and fairly strong academics, you could call UCF and USF "major" schools not in the SEC or ACC.