Would you rather the future of 16 team conferences and an 8-12 team playoff or the 9-10 team conferences and a Bowl game of the past?

Interesting question.

Here's another one. What was the reason that conference expansion happened in the first place? I posit that is was done to acquire markets and garner the CCG and all of the TV money that came with it.

Fast forward to today. Fox drops the Big12 CCG and the PAC12 CCG was played in an empty stadium. Even the SEC CCG, once seen as Super-Bowl like, is now just an appetizer to the main meal of the playoff.

Streaming grows exponentially every year. As more and more content becomes stream only, how soon until conferences, or even schools require complete ownership of streamed content. How soon before those gaudy TV contracts come spiraling back to earth?

How long will it be before those 16 team conferences of the future no longer make sense?

(01-22-2019 01:09 PM)CAJUNNATION Wrote:  Would you rather the future of 16 team conferences and an 8-12 team playoff or the 9-10 team conferences and a Bowl game of the past?

Interesting question.

Here's another one. What was the reason that conference expansion happened in the first place? I posit that is was done to acquire markets and garner the CCG and all of the TV money that came with it.

Fast forward to today. Fox drops the Big12 CCG and the PAC12 CCG was played in an empty stadium. Even the SEC CCG, once seen as Super-Bowl like, is now just an appetizer to the main meal of the playoff.

Streaming grows exponentially every year. As more and more content becomes stream only, how soon until conferences, or even schools require complete ownership of streamed content. How soon before those gaudy TV contracts come spiraling back to earth?

How long will it be before those 16 team conferences of the future no longer make sense?

Since TV rights were taken away from the NCAA and awarded to the schools, every realignment move has about maximizing TV money. In the last round, the B1G added Nebraska to get a CCG and the P10 expanded to 12 for television inventory and to have a CCG. The ACC and SEC expanded so they could reopen their television contracts, each also added inventory and large TV markets. The B1G added Maryland and Rutgers for TV markets and inventory to split their TV deal without hurting the BTN.

The CCGs lost value because they are mostly irrelevant to college playoff entry.

They would regain their stature (and then some) if divisions are done away with and conferences can pick their top two schools to play with an automatic bid on the line. Logically that would leave three at large.

At the moment the CCGs could only have a negative effect. A loss by Ohio State or Oklahoma would have eliminated them, but not placed a school in their conference in the playoff. In the SEC it eliminated Georgia from the race. Had we an 8 team format with CCG winners in, then Ohio State and Washington would have been the 5th and 6th, and Georgia's resume the 7th. The 8th drama, as you run out of unquestionably in schools (Michigan ranked highest, UCF was undefeated on an extremely soft schedule, everyone else of note had three losses).

There is no merit in 16. You effectively have "13" with five CCGs playing for a playoff berth, although 1 or 2 losers would likely also get in, so maybe "11". You can do that without the NCAA stepping into the CCG territory. I actually think this is the direction things will go, it only takes one or two more years of declining CCG interest for the clamor to become great for an expansion to 8.

My point was mainly about the size of conferences.

The environment that caused the creation of 12-14 team conferences no longer exists.

To keep this model relevant, the last thing I would do is do away with divisions.

A clear majority of Big Ten fans would like to go back to 10 teams.

Almost all Big Ten fans would prefer 12 teams over the current alignment.

I'm not a Big Ten fan, but UC generally agrees with the Big 10 because we have similar institutional objectives as Big 10 schools. We're just stuck on the outside looking in, forever.

(01-22-2019 03:51 PM)Captain Bearcat Wrote:  A clear majority of Big Ten fans would like to go back to 10 teams.

Almost all Big Ten fans would prefer 12 teams over the current alignment.

I'm not a Big Ten fan, but UC generally agrees with the Big 10 because we have similar institutional objectives as Big 10 schools. We're just stuck on the outside looking in, forever.

The consumers say, we don't want this. The suits keep saying, yes you do.

One day, the consumers will win the day and contraction will happen because the suits can no longer magically create endless TV money in the streaming age to sustain the current model.

(01-22-2019 03:51 PM)Captain Bearcat Wrote:  A clear majority of Big Ten fans would like to go back to 10 teams.

Almost all Big Ten fans would prefer 12 teams over the current alignment.

I'm not a Big Ten fan, but UC generally agrees with the Big 10 because we have similar institutional objectives as Big 10 schools. We're just stuck on the outside looking in, forever.

IMO, the 10 team Big 12 model and Sun Belt model make the most sense. You actually crown a champion that has played all conference members, not one that only plays about 2/3 of the conference and some teams don't play for decades. The old conference models were the best, i.e. PAC 10, BIG 10. The problem was deciding on a mythical national champion rather than a NC game. And, conferences used to have a geographic footprint. That was lost when realignment was brought about for tv market revenue. Now, these realignments make little sense with conferences stretching across the country.

My preference would be for a geographic realignment of all conferences capped at 10 teams each (fewer teams to share revenue). Redefine FBS requirements and narrow down to 12 FBS conferences. If you are FBS, you have a shot at a NC. Then, have a 16 team playoff, 12 conference champions and 4 at large teams. Let conference championships mean something. Major bowl games can be used for the playoffs. Like the NIT, teams not making the playoffs can play in other bowl games. But, reduce the number of bowl games and do away with 6-6 teams getting in. That is rewarding mediocrity. Fan interest and TV revenue will dictate.

A pipe dream? Yes. But, a dream nonetheless.

(01-22-2019 03:51 PM)Captain Bearcat Wrote:  A clear majority of Big Ten fans would like to go back to 10 teams.

Almost all Big Ten fans would prefer 12 teams over the current alignment.

I'm not a Big Ten fan, but UC generally agrees with the Big 10 because we have similar institutional objectives as Big 10 schools. We're just stuck on the outside looking in, forever.

I am in favor of 8 conferences of 10 teams. I think under that scenario UC would be in a better home than they are in currently. Conference would probably look similar to the Big East circa 2005-2011 with a couple additions.

(01-22-2019 05:13 PM)HoustonCajun Wrote:  

(01-22-2019 03:51 PM)Captain Bearcat Wrote:  A clear majority of Big Ten fans would like to go back to 10 teams.

Almost all Big Ten fans would prefer 12 teams over the current alignment.

I'm not a Big Ten fan, but UC generally agrees with the Big 10 because we have similar institutional objectives as Big 10 schools. We're just stuck on the outside looking in, forever.

IMO, the 10 team Big 12 model and Sun Belt model make the most sense. You actually crown a champion that has played all conference members, not one that only plays about 2/3 of the conference and some teams don't play for decades. The old conference models were the best, i.e. PAC 10, BIG 10. The problem was deciding on a mythical national champion rather than a NC game. And, conferences used to have a geographic footprint. That was lost when realignment was brought about for tv market revenue. Now, these realignments make little sense with conferences stretching across the country.

My preference would be for a geographic realignment of all conferences capped at 10 teams each (fewer teams to share revenue). Redefine FBS requirements and narrow down to 12 FBS conferences. If you are FBS, you have a shot at a NC. Then, have a 16 team playoff, 12 conference champions and 4 at large teams. Let conference championships mean something. Major bowl games can be used for the playoffs. Like the NIT, teams not making the playoffs can play in other bowl games. But, reduce the number of bowl games and do away with 6-6 teams getting in. That is rewarding mediocrity. Fan interest and TV revenue will dictate.

A pipe dream? Yes. But, a dream nonetheless.

Sun Belt champion Appalachian State did not play everyone in the Sun Belt. Only way that would have happened would have been if ULM had made the championship game.

(01-22-2019 01:50 PM)Stugray2 Wrote:  The CCGs lost value because they are mostly irrelevant to college playoff entry.

They would regain their stature (and then some) if divisions are done away with and conferences can pick their top two schools to play with an automatic bid on the line. Logically that would leave three at large.

At the moment the CCGs could only have a negative effect. A loss by Ohio State or Oklahoma would have eliminated them, but not placed a school in their conference in the playoff. In the SEC it eliminated Georgia from the race. Had we an 8 team format with CCG winners in, then Ohio State and Washington would have been the 5th and 6th, and Georgia's resume the 7th. The 8th drama, as you run out of unquestionably in schools (Michigan ranked highest, UCF was undefeated on an extremely soft schedule, everyone else of note had three losses).

There is no merit in 16. You effectively have "13" with five CCGs playing for a playoff berth, although 1 or 2 losers would likely also get in, so maybe "11". You can do that without the NCAA stepping into the CCG territory. I actually think this is the direction things will go, it only takes one or two more years of declining CCG interest for the clamor to become great for an expansion to 8.

Nah, then they just get the NCAA to permit a 2-round conference championship.

(01-22-2019 01:09 PM)CAJUNNATION Wrote:  Would you rather the future of 16 team conferences and an 8-12 team playoff or the 9-10 team conferences and a Bowl game of the past?

Interesting question.

Here's another one. What was the reason that conference expansion happened in the first place? I posit that is was done to acquire markets and garner the CCG and all of the TV money that came with it.

Fast forward to today. Fox drops the Big12 CCG and the PAC12 CCG was played in an empty stadium. Even the SEC CCG, once seen as Super-Bowl like, is now just an appetizer to the main meal of the playoff.

Streaming grows exponentially every year. As more and more content becomes stream only, how soon until conferences, or even schools require complete ownership of streamed content. How soon before those gaudy TV contracts come spiraling back to earth?

How long will it be before those 16 team conferences of the future no longer make sense?

Besides the SEC championship, the other conference championship games are ugly failures...

I'd rather see a bigger playoff.

The majority of bowl games are awful and outdated. The Cheeze-IT Bowl?? Ugh

Sixteen teams would be P4 losing a power conference.
Get rid of divisions no need for at large or more than four playoff teams.
The conference championship games would be the first round of the playoffs.

[quote='CAJUNNATION' pid='15851948' dateline='1548180557']
Would you rather the future of 16 team conferences and an 8-12 team playoff or the 9-10 team conferences and a Bowl game of the past?
[\quote]

I want a future that is a true mix of the past & present, but no more of this stupid “we have to be better than them” garbage. Let the athletes have that drive to be better than their competitors. I have no problem with 100,000(+) seat stadiums, so long as they can be filled. If they cannot be filled, that is a problem. These loge boxes and all of this other crap just ruins the experience for me as a fan. If I want that crap, I’ll take in a durn NFL game. Right now, although you would not believe it, Cajunnation, a lot of the teams are very happy in the conference that they are in, with possibly one exception, and it will surprise you too: Nebraska. I don’t think Nebraska is all that happy with the Big Ten. Do they like the $$’s & prestige? Yes, but if the $$’s were the same in the Big XII and if they had a conference network too, I’d seriously think Nebraska might at least ponder bolting for the Big XII. Contrary to popular opinion though, Texas A&M & Missouri are both happy in the SEC. I have said this over and over and over again, but nobody will listen to me. The problem is NOT Missouri!! It’s actually Nebraska, IMO. Problem is who do you replace Nebraska with in the Big Ten, considering Missouri is NOT available, and Notre Dame doesn’t want to come? Options are pretty scarce at that point. The East is fine for the Big Ten; it’s the West that’s the problem.


[quote]
Here's another one. What was the reason that conference expansion happened in the first place? [/quote]

The original reason why conference expansion happened in the first place was because Joe Paterno wanted Penn State to join a conference and the Big East was not available. JoePa turned his eyes to the Big Ten, and that’s when the dominoes first started falling, IMO.

Its hard to say whether larger models like 14 or 16 will be relevant in the future.

Trends will continue to cycle around. Bigger was better in the 90's when the WAC moved to 16 and the MAC moved to 13. Then the MWC split out of the WAC and a lot of MAC fans at the time wanted to split out like that and leave some of the underperforming programs behind.

Bigger came back in 2012 with the 14 team conferences. ACC once known for its tight 9 team configuration has 15 in basketball now. CUSA known to be leaner and meaner than the MAC now has 14. Average D1 conference size is now at 11, so the MAC at 12 for a while the largest D1 conference is not far from the average size now.