I'm doing a research paper and obviously picked Conference Realignment as my topic. I request for only serious replies and I may quote posters from this thread. Please don't attack other members of the board for their opinions, would rather this not be a 15 page thread where I gotta weave my way through it to find serious replies. Once my project is finished I'll post my paper as well as the Power Point Presentation. Thanks ahead for your time...

1: Would you be in favor of either the NCAA or association forming 8 Conferences of 10 teams based on geography, history/rivalries, and academic associations (such as the CIC).

2: With this realignment you'd have an 11 game season with a 16 team tournament w/ the top 2 from each conference in the playoffs.

The alignment I'm aiming for in the paper/presentation is this (and may adjust):
Pac 10 minus: Colorado and Utah

B1G minus: PSU, Rutgers, Nebraska, and Maryland

SEC minus: Arkansas, LSU, A&M, and Mizzou

ACC minus: Pitt, Syracuse, BC, Louisville, and Miami and readding Maryland

Big 8+2: Nebraska, Colorado, Mizzou, Kansas, Kansas State, Iowa State, Memphis, Louisville, Cincinnati, TCU,

SWC: Texas, A&M, Baylor, Arkansas, LSU, Oklahoma, Oklahoma State, Houston, New Mexico

Unnamed Northeast Conference: Notre Dame, Penn State, Miami, Pitt, WVU, Rutgers, UConn, Syracuse, Boston College, Temple

WAC: Boise State, Air Force, Utah, Colorado State, BYU, Fresno State, Wyoming, Hawaii, UNLV, Neveda

Unsure about the 8th and Final league. May possibly splinter a couple of leagues to work it in....

Thx again for your time...

Edit:
Guys, the survey isn't so much about various different idea's... It's to tell me if my idea is fantastic or if it blows.

And we all know what I'm proposing will NOT HAPPEN... It's just for the sake of earning an A on a paper.

I would be in favor of forced restructuring of an 80 team model like you are talking about for geography sake but it would take a commitment of the 80 to leave the NCAA Big Tent and go the quasi-amateur route.

You're proposed alignment looks more like a throwback to where things were in the 1980s instead of a look to the future. Why not place Ohio State in the Northeast division to give it more clout.

NE: Ohio St, Penn St, Pittsburgh, Syracuse, Rutgers, Maryland, BC, UConn

Also you have resurrected the WAC. If you set the quasi-amateur league as 10 conferences, 8 teams a piece then the PAC-8 could return and Arizona, Arizona State would play in the WAC. This time around the WAC would have Colorado.

WAC: Arizona, Arizona St, UNLV, Utah, Boise St, UNM, Col St, Colorado

A few G5 schools make the cut here (UNLV, Boise St, UNM, Col St) but even here in the mountain region the alignment retains a power conference base. I wouldn't put Air Force or any of the service academies in the quasi-amateur top level.

Being forced to go back to the failed SWC model?

No thanks.

Even with those teams and in all the others you have the same problem of being too regional.

In theory it's nice for the fans but the big schools will not tolerate their funds drying up due to smaller TV contracts from less interest. That's why we have super regional conferences

IOW, only mid majors would want this plan so the local big boys would have to play them.

No I would not be in favor of going back in time, sorry.

Good luck with the project though!

(11-11-2013 01:48 AM)ClairtonPanther Wrote:  I'm doing a research paper and obviously picked Conference Realignment as my topic. I request for only serious replies and I may quote posters from this thread. Please don't attack other members of the board for their opinions, would rather this not be a 15 page thread where I gotta weave my way through it to find serious replies. Once my project is finished I'll post my paper as well as the Power Point Presentation. Thanks ahead for your time...

1: Would you be in favor of either the NCAA or association forming 8 Conferences of 10 teams based on geography, history/rivalries, and academic associations (such as the CIC).

2: With this realignment you'd have an 11 game season with a 16 team tournament w/ the top 2 from each conference in the playoffs.

The alignment I'm aiming for in the paper/presentation is this (and may adjust):
Pac 10 minus: Colorado and Utah

B1G minus: PSU, Rutgers, Nebraska, and Maryland

SEC minus: Arkansas, LSU, A&M, and Mizzou

ACC minus: Pitt, Syracuse, BC, Louisville, and Miami and readding Maryland

Big 8+2: Nebraska, Colorado, Mizzou, Kansas, Kansas State, Iowa State, Memphis, Louisville, Cincinnati, TCU,

SWC: Texas, A&M, Baylor, Arkansas, LSU, Oklahoma, Oklahoma State, Houston, New Mexico

Unnamed Northeast Conference: Notre Dame, Penn State, Miami, Pitt, WVU, Rutgers, UConn, Syracuse, Boston College, Temple

WAC: Boise State, Air Force, Utah, Colorado State, BYU, Fresno State, Wyoming, Hawaii, UNLV, Neveda

Unsure about the 8th and Final league. May possibly splinter a couple of leagues to work it in....

Thx again for your time...

IOW, only mid majors would want this plan so the local big boys would have to play them.
^^^^^^^^^
THIS

i like the current 14 team model, i think it works and that its best for the schools on all levels (athletics, markets, academics). a big part of current conference realignment is righting past wrongs. for example colorado never should of gone to the b8, and we never should of picked the b12 over the pac10. CU opted for the b12 over the p12 on a 5-4 vote in the 90s. (2 of the yes votes later recanted).

colorado's alumni, student body & football recruiting have always been focused in the west rather than the east. we have always been a de facto pac school.

and one thing that people dont realize about this pac12 move is that utah & colorado up until the 60s were each others biggest rival. (they were conference rivals before the pac was even formed).

you have other moves like CU that really were long overdue (aggie, syracuse) and will do wonders for these schools in a lot of area's not just athletics. i think it would be a mistake to undo them.

you just cant build 8 separate conferences and not severe recruiting grounds, academics, markets, rivalries etc.

It's not that hard. 8 16 team conferences with 2 divisions 10 games then conference championship. 8 team playoff.

I suggest 10 12 team conferences, with each conference having a semi-final and final. That means currently 6 teams would get the boot down to FCS, but I'm not going to list 6, I'd leave that to a committee of the FBS.

Sent from my LG-VM696 using Tapatalk 2

The 6 that just joined.

Sorry, but I do think any of your suggestions as presented will every happen. What I envision next is :

Step I: A 8-team play consisting of the P5 champions, plus the 3 highest ranked from the independents and the G5.

Step II: A 16 team playoff consisting of the P5 champions, G5 champions, and the 6 remaining highest rank teams from Division One.

(11-11-2013 08:29 AM)Wilkie01 Wrote:  Sorry, but I do think any of your suggestions as presented will every happen. What I envision next is :

Step I: A 8-team play consisting of the P5 champions, plus the 3 highest ranked from the independents and the G5.

Step II: A 16 team playoff consisting of the P5 champions, G5 champions, and the 6 remaining highest rank teams from Division One.

Agree, except your Steps 1 and 2 will be Steps 2 and 3 with Step one being the allowing of conferences being divided into 4 divisions and having conference championship semifinals.

I have no right of respect from any poster/reader on this board, but I think eight (8) 9-team conferences is perfect. Balanced BB round-robins (every team plays every other conf team twice every season). Equal FB home/away Sched (an odd number such as 9 doesn't work... and 10 certainly doesn't).

And I do not think the number of total season games should increase.

More, smaller conferences is MY answer.

Guys, the survey isn't so much about various different idea's... It's to tell me if my idea is fantastic or if it blows.

And we all know what I'm proposing will NOT HAPPEN... It's just for the sake of earning an A on a paper.

(11-11-2013 01:48 AM)ClairtonPanther Wrote:  Big 8+2: Nebraska, Colorado, Mizzou, Kansas, Kansas State, Iowa State, Memphis, Louisville, Cincinnati, TCU,

SWC: Texas, A&M, Baylor, Arkansas, LSU, Oklahoma, Oklahoma State, Houston, New Mexico

Isn't that 9 teams in your SWC? Maybe you omitted TT by mistake... Also, based on the geography/history/rivalry aspect, we should see Oklahoma and Oklahoma State in the "Big 8"-descended conference, not the SWC-descended conference.

In favor of voluntary realignment based on geography, history/rivalry, academics/culture. But against mandatory realignment compelled by the NCAA or any other umbrella-like institution.

In favor of an 11-game season, and in favor of a play-off with 16 teams. I would not necessarily require that two teams from each conferences be chosen for the playoff, but I can see how that might be necessary in order to create some sense of broad cooperation among the conferences.

There must be some way to enable schools on the "outside" to get "inside". Some sort of neutral criteria -- perhaps a formula of enrollment, # of scholarships, # of sports sponsored, budget (confirmed by independent audit), actual attendance, etc.

(11-11-2013 08:59 AM)ClairtonPanther Wrote:  Guys, the survey isn't so much about various different idea's... It's to tell me if my idea is fantastic or if it blows.

And we all know what I'm proposing will NOT HAPPEN... It's just for the sake of earning an A on a paper.

no offense, but i think it blows. everyone of your proposed conference's has a serious issue with it.

(11-11-2013 09:02 AM)john01992 Wrote:  

(11-11-2013 08:59 AM)ClairtonPanther Wrote:  Guys, the survey isn't so much about various different idea's... It's to tell me if my idea is fantastic or if it blows.

And we all know what I'm proposing will NOT HAPPEN... It's just for the sake of earning an A on a paper.

no offense, but i think it blows. everyone of your proposed conference's has a serious issue with it.

no offense taken... got a thick skin

8 regional conferences? Yes. Not sure about the number - 8? 9? 10? 11? 12? 16 is too many as that will eventually lead to a split.

11 game season? No. You are only allowing for 2 OOC games. Schools need a minimum of 6 home games. If you only have 4 conference home games the chances of 2 of 2 OOC home games is zero. You would loose season ticket sales (still a major source of revenue). Fans are not going to donate tens of thousands of dollars so they can buy 4 tickets.

16 team tourney? No. Unless you are counting the CCG as round 1.

Proposed conferences? No. I'd love to have Maryland back in the ACC but not at the expense of Miami. You said the conferences would be based on geography. If so, the only option for Miami is the ACC or SEC.

You are asking conferences to give a lot and offering nothing in return.

I don't think your idea blows but it is a resounding NO from me.

(11-11-2013 01:48 AM)ClairtonPanther Wrote:  I'm doing a research paper and obviously picked Conference Realignment as my topic. I request for only serious replies and I may quote posters from this thread. Please don't attack other members of the board for their opinions, would rather this not be a 15 page thread where I gotta weave my way through it to find serious replies. Once my project is finished I'll post my paper as well as the Power Point Presentation. Thanks ahead for your time...

1: Would you be in favor of either the NCAA or association forming 8 Conferences of 10 teams based on geography, history/rivalries, and academic associations (such as the CIC).

2: With this realignment you'd have an 11 game season with a 16 team tournament w/ the top 2 from each conference in the playoffs.

The alignment I'm aiming for in the paper/presentation is this (and may adjust):
Pac 10 minus: Colorado and Utah

B1G minus: PSU, Rutgers, Nebraska, and Maryland

SEC minus: Arkansas, LSU, A&M, and Mizzou

ACC minus: Pitt, Syracuse, BC, Louisville, and Miami and readding Maryland

Big 8+2: Nebraska, Colorado, Mizzou, Kansas, Kansas State, Iowa State, Memphis, Louisville, Cincinnati, TCU,

SWC: Texas, A&M, Baylor, Arkansas, LSU, Oklahoma, Oklahoma State, Houston, New Mexico

Unnamed Northeast Conference: Notre Dame, Penn State, Miami, Pitt, WVU, Rutgers, UConn, Syracuse, Boston College, Temple

WAC: Boise State, Air Force, Utah, Colorado State, BYU, Fresno State, Wyoming, Hawaii, UNLV, Neveda

Unsure about the 8th and Final league. May possibly splinter a couple of leagues to work it in....

Thx again for your time...

Edit:
Guys, the survey isn't so much about various different idea's... It's to tell me if my idea is fantastic or if it blows.

And we all know what I'm proposing will NOT HAPPEN... It's just for the sake of earning an A on a paper.

1. No. The schools should be free to do their own association.

I will say there are a lot of merits to your proposal if the group shared revenues. It would be back to old rivalries, reduced travel for student-athletes and closer knit conferences.

It does look like your dream NE league. There would have to be better balancing. Nebraska is kind of lonely.

I think you left Texas Tech off the SWC list. And San Diego State deserves in the WAC before Nevada and Wyoming. And if you include Air Force, you've got to find a place for Army and Navy. Personally I would rather see them drop down and not distract from their mission by trying to recruit football players. So maybe you consider SDSU for AF.

(11-11-2013 09:44 AM)bullet Wrote:  San Diego State deserves in the WAC before Nevada and Wyoming.

I view them as equal, as far as "deserving" the chance to compete in athletics is concerned...

Quote:if you include Air Force, you've got to find a place for Army and Navy.

True.

Quote:Personally I would rather see them drop down and not distract from their mission by trying to recruit football players.

I have felt conflicted about that for a long time. Lately I am beginning to share this ^ view, however. College football (at the FBS level) has become so quasi-professional, that it makes less and less sense for the academies to participate in it. That's not the same thing as saying that they Can't compete, because obviously they can. But should they? A question to think about going forward...

While I love the idea of 10 team conferences (and no conference championship games), I would not want that kind of power going to the NCAA. I prefer power to remain decentralized.

For the playoff, I love the way the regular season now goes about and importance of even games across the country. If you have 1/4 the teams making it into the playoff, it's like basketball-there is no reason to pay attention to anyone outside of your conference (unless you are just looking for a game to watch) until playoff time. I love the tradition of the bowls which would be sidelined here as well. Personally, I could never vote for a system with more than 4 playoff teams for those two reasons.

Edit: Of 16 team playoff proposals though, this still is about my favorite.

I think it is worth writing if you can show that the smaller groupings and regional importance would lead to more interest, which leads to more revenue, which results in potential funding for the academic mission of the school. Show how it will benefit your professor, and it will be golden.

On an SEC note, you should have LSU in the SEC and put out South Carolina. Taking LSU away from the traditional SEC teams would be like taking Ohio State or Michigan out of the B1G.