This is my own personal musing and not something I think we will ever actually see but I'd love to see the big conferences grow to 15-16 members and host conference semi finals:

15 allows for 3 divisions of 5. 3 Division winners and a wild card advance to the semis.

16 gives you the option to send 4 winners of pods of 4 or winners of two divisions of 8 and 2 wild cards.

Advantages:

Each Conference controls their own revenue in what would amount to the National Championship round of 16 and round of 8. Winners of all 4 power conferences (sorry Big 12, you're getting dismembered in this proposal) advance to the Rose and Sugar bowls for the semi finals.

It ensures that all 4 elite leagues get a seat at the table in the national championship semi finals.

Smaller divisions and conference scheduling flexibility ensures that rivalries get protected and that each conference has the ability to build their own structure in a way that best suits their needs.

(12-16-2017 02:58 PM)Fighting Muskie Wrote:  This is my own personal musing and not something I think we will ever actually see but I'd love to see the big conferences grow to 15-16 members and host conference semi finals:

15 allows for 3 divisions of 5. 3 Division winners and a wild card advance to the semis.

16 gives you the option to send 4 winners of pods of 4 or winners of two divisions of 8 and 2 wild cards.

Advantages:

Each Conference controls their own revenue in what would amount to the National Championship round of 16 and round of 8. Winners of all 4 power conferences (sorry Big 12, you're getting dismembered in this proposal) advance to the Rose and Sugar bowls for the semi finals.

It ensures that all 4 elite leagues get a seat at the table in the national championship semi finals.

Smaller divisions and conference scheduling flexibility ensures that rivalries get protected and that each conference has the ability to build their own structure in a way that best suits their needs.

Actually Muskie, 15 member conferences may not be a bad model in P5. Three pods @ 5 each could work if the conferences have the flexibility to decide their own championship methodologies. The ACC sought to do something similar a couple or so years ago, but the BIG and the SEC successfully led the opposition to it before the NCAA/FBS, by insisting on divisions.

At 16, may as well retain 2 divisions. Pods of 4 seem awfully small, and adds more complications.

For those P5 @ 14 now, finding and agreeing on one available addition, is much simpler than finding two, if they are willing to embrace pods.

Semi-finals seem terribly redundant and overkill leading to unneeded rematches.

You could have 2 different permanent 8-team divisions with the winners of each division meeting in a CCG. Or you could have 4 different 4-team pods with rotating schedules. Or you could just have random divisions each year with each team still having permanent rivals.

I just don't get why you would add an extra game that really not needed.

(12-16-2017 08:41 PM)OdinFrigg Wrote:  

(12-16-2017 02:58 PM)Fighting Muskie Wrote:  This is my own personal musing and not something I think we will ever actually see but I'd love to see the big conferences grow to 15-16 members and host conference semi finals:

15 allows for 3 divisions of 5. 3 Division winners and a wild card advance to the semis.

16 gives you the option to send 4 winners of pods of 4 or winners of two divisions of 8 and 2 wild cards.

Advantages:

Each Conference controls their own revenue in what would amount to the National Championship round of 16 and round of 8. Winners of all 4 power conferences (sorry Big 12, you're getting dismembered in this proposal) advance to the Rose and Sugar bowls for the semi finals.

It ensures that all 4 elite leagues get a seat at the table in the national championship semi finals.

Smaller divisions and conference scheduling flexibility ensures that rivalries get protected and that each conference has the ability to build their own structure in a way that best suits their needs.

Actually Muskie, 15 member conferences may not be a bad model in P5. Three pods @ 5 each could work if the conferences have the flexibility to decide their own championship methodologies. The ACC sought to do something similar a couple or so years ago, but the BIG and the SEC successfully led the opposition to it before the NCAA/FBS, by insisting on divisions.

At 16, may as well retain 2 divisions. Pods of 4 seem awfully small, and adds more complications.

For those P5 @ 14 now, finding and agreeing on one available addition, is much simpler than finding two, if they are willing to embrace pods.

Scheduling divisions/pods of 4 in a 16-team conference make a ton of sense. (Assuming CCG deregulation).

9-game conference schedule, following the 3-2-2-2 format. Play your conference rivals/regional opponents annually and everyone else in the conference twice in 4 years.

(12-16-2017 11:27 PM)goofus Wrote:  Semi-finals seem terribly redundant and overkill leading to unneeded rematches.

You could have 2 different permanent 8-team divisions with the winners of each division meeting in a CCG. Or you could have 4 different 4-team pods with rotating schedules. Or you could just have random divisions each year with each team still having permanent rivals.

I just don't get why you would add an extra game that really not needed.

In the two 8-team division model, you could count only division games in determining the semifinal participants. In that model, the #1 from Division A plays #2 from division B and vice versa. The only rematch comes if both finalists are from the same division.

If we are going to cannibalize one of the P5, then two 9 team divisions make more sense to me, giving everybody a 4 home / 4 away division round robin. And with 72 teams in the four power conferences, the chances that would not include all the teams with a realistic chance to win what would amount to a 16 team playoff are slim enough to be easily ignored.

(12-18-2017 02:18 PM)YNot Wrote:  

(12-16-2017 08:41 PM)OdinFrigg Wrote:  

(12-16-2017 02:58 PM)Fighting Muskie Wrote:  This is my own personal musing and not something I think we will ever actually see but I'd love to see the big conferences grow to 15-16 members and host conference semi finals:

15 allows for 3 divisions of 5. 3 Division winners and a wild card advance to the semis.

16 gives you the option to send 4 winners of pods of 4 or winners of two divisions of 8 and 2 wild cards.

Advantages:

Each Conference controls their own revenue in what would amount to the National Championship round of 16 and round of 8. Winners of all 4 power conferences (sorry Big 12, you're getting dismembered in this proposal) advance to the Rose and Sugar bowls for the semi finals.

It ensures that all 4 elite leagues get a seat at the table in the national championship semi finals.

Smaller divisions and conference scheduling flexibility ensures that rivalries get protected and that each conference has the ability to build their own structure in a way that best suits their needs.

Actually Muskie, 15 member conferences may not be a bad model in P5. Three pods @ 5 each could work if the conferences have the flexibility to decide their own championship methodologies. The ACC sought to do something similar a couple or so years ago, but the BIG and the SEC successfully led the opposition to it before the NCAA/FBS, by insisting on divisions.

At 16, may as well retain 2 divisions. Pods of 4 seem awfully small, and adds more complications.

For those P5 @ 14 now, finding and agreeing on one available addition, is much simpler than finding two, if they are willing to embrace pods.

Scheduling divisions/pods of 4 in a 16-team conference make a ton of sense. (Assuming CCG deregulation).

9-game conference schedule, following the 3-2-2-2 format. Play your conference rivals/regional opponents annually and everyone else in the conference twice in 4 years.

I'm a huge fan of the 3-2-2-2 format. It works great for a Pac 16 or a 16 member SEC or ACC. The beauty of it is that you play your 3 biggest rivals annually and the rest of your conference every other year.

The conference that it doesn't work so well for is the Big Ten. Who do you screw over and put in a division with Penn St, Rutgers, and Maryland?

(12-18-2017 02:27 PM)ken d Wrote:  

(12-16-2017 11:27 PM)goofus Wrote:  Semi-finals seem terribly redundant and overkill leading to unneeded rematches.

You could have 2 different permanent 8-team divisions with the winners of each division meeting in a CCG. Or you could have 4 different 4-team pods with rotating schedules. Or you could just have random divisions each year with each team still having permanent rivals.

I just don't get why you would add an extra game that really not needed.

In the two 8-team division model, you could count only division games in determining the semifinal participants. In that model, the #1 from Division A plays #2 from division B and vice versa. The only rematch comes if both finalists are from the same division.

If we are going to cannibalize one of the P5, then two 9 team divisions make more sense to me, giving everybody a 4 home / 4 away division round robin. And with 72 teams in the four power conferences, the chances that would not include all the teams with a realistic chance to win what would amount to a 16 team playoff are slim enough to be easily ignored.

I like that but what do you do about this year's Big Ten? 3 of the 4 best schools were all in the East.

(12-16-2017 08:41 PM)OdinFrigg Wrote:  

(12-16-2017 02:58 PM)Fighting Muskie Wrote:  This is my own personal musing and not something I think we will ever actually see but I'd love to see the big conferences grow to 15-16 members and host conference semi finals:

15 allows for 3 divisions of 5. 3 Division winners and a wild card advance to the semis.

16 gives you the option to send 4 winners of pods of 4 or winners of two divisions of 8 and 2 wild cards.

Advantages:

Each Conference controls their own revenue in what would amount to the National Championship round of 16 and round of 8. Winners of all 4 power conferences (sorry Big 12, you're getting dismembered in this proposal) advance to the Rose and Sugar bowls for the semi finals.

It ensures that all 4 elite leagues get a seat at the table in the national championship semi finals.

Smaller divisions and conference scheduling flexibility ensures that rivalries get protected and that each conference has the ability to build their own structure in a way that best suits their needs.

Actually Muskie, 15 member conferences may not be a bad model in P5. Three pods @ 5 each could work if the conferences have the flexibility to decide their own championship methodologies. The ACC sought to do something similar a couple or so years ago, but the BIG and the SEC successfully led the opposition to it before the NCAA/FBS, by insisting on divisions.

At 16, may as well retain 2 divisions. Pods of 4 seem awfully small, and adds more complications.

For those P5 @ 14 now, finding and agreeing on one available addition, is much simpler than finding two, if they are willing to embrace pods.

I like 15 for the ACC a lot. I also think you could do a Pac 15 with Texas, Texas Tech, and TCU joining a division with the Arizona schools. Utah goes with the California schools, and the Northwest schools get Colorado. The last week of the season either Stanford or USC hosts Notre Dame--with 15 everyone is guaranteed to have a conference game to cap of the regular season.

I like the idea of the 15 team, 3 division alignment. In football, it would allow an eight game conference schedule with four divisional games and a home/away against the other two divisions. Conferences get semifinals with three division winners and an at-large team. All of the P5 conference championship game winners and the best of the G5 automatically go to an expanded eight team CFP with two at-large teams. There can be certain stipulations in place for the inclusion of Notre Dame (or another independent team) or even a second G5 team as the at-large teams.

What’s ridiculous is that some conferences are forced to have divisions for a title game and others aren’t.

I don't like the 3 division scenario. The semi-annual bitching and moaning from the 2 teams at 6-2 or 7-2, which one gets left out of the CCG... I don't think it would well received.

(12-18-2017 05:49 PM)Fighting Muskie Wrote:  I'm a huge fan of the 3-2-2-2 format. It works great for a Pac 16 or a 16 member SEC or ACC. The beauty of it is that you play your 3 biggest rivals annually and the rest of your conference every other year.

The conference that it doesn't work so well for is the Big Ten. Who do you screw over and put in a division with Penn St, Rutgers, and Maryland?

You add 2 teams to get to the 3-2-2-2 format, so you relegate the newbies to the Rutgers/Maryland division. That would be a great fit for UConn. OR, move Indiana and Purdue East as you add Oklahoma and Kansas in the West. Sell them on the easier schedule.

Division A: Oklahoma, Kansas, Nebraska, Iowa
Division B: Minnesota, Wisconsin, Northwestern, Illinois
Division C: Michigan, Michigan St., Ohio St., Penn St.
Division D: Maryland, Rutgers, Indiana, Purdue

(12-18-2017 08:15 PM)PK_UToledo Wrote:  I like the idea of the 15 team, 3 division alignment. In football, it would allow an eight game conference schedule with four divisional games and a home/away against the other two divisions. Conferences get semifinals with three division winners and an at-large team. All of the P5 conference championship game winners and the best of the G5 automatically go to an expanded eight team CFP with two at-large teams. There can be certain stipulations in place for the inclusion of Notre Dame (or another independent team) or even a second G5 team as the at-large teams.

The math works cleaner with four 18-team conferences. 72 teams. 9-game conference schedule using a 5-2-2 format. 3 OCC games, 1 against each of the other P4 conferences, if you want.

1 home exhibition game against a G5/FCS opponent. The Conference Championship Tournaments spill directly into the CFP structure. The separation would be complete.

15 or 16 would be a good way to get the ball rolling, but I agree that 15 will cause annual complaining. I don't see how the XII survives, so that conference will implode.

PAC
West: Washington, Washington St, Oregon, Oregon St, California, Stanford, USC, UCLA
East: Arizona, Arizona St, Utah, Colorado, Texas, Texas Tech, TCU, Kansas St

SEC
West: Missouri, Oklahoma, Oklahoma St, Texas A&M, Arkansas, LSU, Mississippi, Mississippi St
East: Alabama, Auburn, Kentucky, Tennessee, Vanderbilt, Georgia, Florida, South Carolina

ACC
Atlantic: North Carolina, Duke, Miami, Georgia Tech, Virginia, Virginia Tech, Louisville, West Virginia
Coastal: North Carolina St, Wake Forest, Florida St, Clemson, Notre Dame, Boston College, Pittsburgh, Syracuse

B1G
West: Kansas, Nebraska, Iowa, Iowa St, Minnesota, Wisconsin, Illinois, Northwestern
East: Indiana, Purdue, Michigan, Michigan St, Ohio St, Penn St, Maryland, Rutgers

The B1G looks "screwed" but they made their bed with their standards and moving Eastward rather than locking former Big 8 members like Missouri. It's not right or wrong, just their preference.

With only 11 games you are taking a home game away from the other 10-12 schools and, depending on the format, 2 of the 4 schools in the conference tournament. All 4 schools if the semi's are played at a neutral site. Most schools need/want that extra home game. With schools like Clemson that have an OOC rival and like to schedule schools Auburn and Georgia regularly lose the extra home game.

The current conference make up would be fine if the conferences had the ability to determine their own championship format.

(12-19-2017 12:06 PM)BePcr07 Wrote:  ACC
Atlantic: North Carolina, Duke, Miami, Georgia Tech, Virginia, Virginia Tech, Louisville, West Virginia
Coastal: North Carolina St, Wake Forest, Florida St, Clemson, Notre Dame, Boston College, Pittsburgh, Syracuse

If the ACC is scoring both ND and WV, I think they can break into North and South Divisions that are fairly balanced in terms of football strength:

North: Boston College, Louisville, Notre Dame, Pittsburgh, Syracuse, Virginia, Virginia Tech, West Virginia
South: Clemson, Duke, Florida State, Georgia Tech, Miami, NC State, North Carolina, Wake Forest

And then if necessary just have one protected crossover between UNC and UVA.

For a fairer distribution of schools between the Big Ten, Pac, and SEC, I'm thinking something like this:

Big Ten
East: Indiana, Maryland, Michigan, Michigan State, Ohio State, Penn State, Purdue, Rutgers
West: Illinois, Iowa, Kansas, Minnesota, Nebraska, Northwestern, Oklahoma, Wisconsin

Pac-16
East: Arizona, Arizona State, BYU, Colorado, Houston, Texas, Texas Tech, Utah
West: California, Oregon, Oregon State, Stanford, UCLA, USC, Washington, Washington State

SEC
East: Alabama, Auburn, Florida, Georgia, Kentucky, South Carolina, Tennessee, Vanderbilt
West: Arkansas, LSU, Mississippi State, Missouri, Oklahoma State, Ole Miss, TCU, Texas A&M

Obviously not realistic though, especially with BYU in there.