This thread assumes that the hypothetical scenario posed has already happened. We aren’t to debate whether it ever will happen, or whether it should happen. The only purpose is to speculate how FBS conferences would react if it did. This is the hypothetical scenario.

The NCAA has agreed to allow all FBS conferences to determine their champion however they see fit, subject only to the following limitations. Conferences with at least 10 members may stage a season ending championship game. Conferences with more than 14 members may stage a four-team championship tournament, provided that the Conference Final Game is played no later than December 10th. All current rules regarding divisions and scheduling within a conference are no longer in effect.

The question is simple. Which conferences, if any, would add new members if these changes were adopted? Feel free to give reasons why you think they would change, how one conference’s decisions would affect other conferences, or to comment on how this might affect the CFP and bowl structure.

What advantage would a champion of a conference with a 4-team tournament have over a champion of conference with a title game besides playing one extra game? Is this assuming that the extra team they face would improve their SoS in regards to the CFP more than a the other conference champions?

(03-01-2019 12:02 PM)TrueBlueDrew Wrote:  What advantage would a champion of a conference with a 4-team tournament have over a champion of conference with a title game besides playing one extra game? Is this assuming that the extra team they face would improve their SoS in regards to the CFP more than a the other conference champions?

That might be one question a conference would want to consider before expanding. The question posed was which conferences would expand, which assumes that you have already answered that question for every conference.

My guess is that this would put the SEC over the top, and that they would, with ESPN's blessing, invite Texas and Texas Tech. IMO, they would keep divisions, moving Mizzou to the West and Alabama and Auburn to the East. They would have an incredibly lucrative championship tournament, including the two division champions plus the two highest ranked non-champions regardless of division.

That move alone would not kill the Big XII. But by allowing 15 member conferences to have a CCT, that could induce the ACC and B1G to add a single new member each, and it's likely IMO that those two teams would both come from the Big XII.

We would see the B1G and ACC, likely followed by the SEC and P12, eliminate divisions in football. The top two record teams regardless of today's divisions would play for the Championship, probably with an AD meeting to confirm the Sunday after the last games.

The big impact would be regular season scheduling. Auburn would play a more balanced "east" and "west" schedule is one example.

The other impact is that Conferences would no longer need an even number of teams. So the B1G and SEC could add a single school for a 15th and not have to find a balancing 16th. Same for the ACC (in football) and the Pac-12 (13th only).

It means only schools who bring enough on their own can get in one of those conferences. "Complimentary" schools who might ride with a fully desired school will not be picked up. The B1G could take KU and the SEC take OU and just sit at 15 for example, no need for a 16th.

(03-01-2019 12:38 PM)Stugray2 Wrote:  We would see the B1G and ACC, likely followed by the SEC and P12, eliminate divisions in football. The top two record teams regardless of today's divisions would play for the Championship, probably with an AD meeting to confirm the Sunday after the last games.

The big impact would be regular season scheduling. Auburn would play a more balanced "east" and "west" schedule is one example.

The other impact is that Conferences would no longer need an even number of teams. So the B1G and SEC could add a single school for a 15th and not have to find a balancing 16th. Same for the ACC (in football) and the Pac-12 (13th only).

It means only schools who bring enough on their own can get in one of those conferences. "Complimentary" schools who might ride with a fully desired school will not be picked up. The B1G could take KU and the SEC take OU and just sit at 15 for example, no need for a 16th.

I think the B1G would be happy to take Oklahoma without a tagalong. But I also think that OU isn't going to move anywhere without either Texas or Oklahoma State going with them. While the B1G would gladly take OU and UT as a pair, I think they might balk at OU plus OK State. A problem for the B1G is that Kansas, while an attractive brand for somebody, doesn't add anything the B1G needs - except a 15th member to qualify for a CCT.

For the power conferences, the revenue from two conference semifinal games is enough on its own to pay for any one school they may want to add. Further down the food chain, not so much. I don't think any media partner is going to pay enough for a C-USA semifinal to justify adding a member. And for the PAC, who would have to add three new mouths to feed to get a CCT, it's probably not worth it.

Disagree. OU will look out for #1.

They know they can't take OK State with them. That is a hard "no" from both the SEC and B1G. My guess is they go B1G and hop Texas follows, which they might well do. If they don't KU will be the fall back. Same scenario with the SEC.

The very idea that a small state like Oklahoma could tell the SEC or B1G they have to take both schools is laughable. Fans like it because it hearkens back to the days of the political conventions and back room dealing where your buddy can come for the ride. But the world is corporate now, especially at the top. Wild ride gangsters were replaced by theme park corporations in Las Vegas. The same can be said of the major college conferences. Too much money at stake to leave it to "wing it" amateurs.

So you need to give up on the idea that any schools are tie to each other. They are not. A Football game in November is the only real tie of OK State and OU. Honestly there is no reason to think that needs to end with a conference change. OU would have enough leverage IMO to demand even from the B1G that bedlam be allowed to continue in November, much like the deal the Pac-12 has with Stanford and USC to host Notre Dame around Turkey Day weekend. That would be a unique situation for the B1G, but nothing new in the ACC or SEC.

The comment above points to the B12 and Texas hurt feelings being the reason the A&M game ceased, ditto for KU and Mizzou, as there is no such block on the SEC side to playing an OOC rival in November as Florida, Kentucky, Georgia and South Carolina do. Actually it amazes me how personally Big 12 folks take these corporate decisions by schools.

Bottom line, OU is not going to stay in a conference that has long term survival issues and accept $20M less a year in media payout to do so out of loyalty to OK State. Over a decade you are talking at least $250M difference. Friendships end over less than that.

(03-01-2019 02:05 PM)Stugray2 Wrote:  Disagree. OU will look out for #1.

They know they can't take OK State with them. That is a hard "no" from both the SEC and B1G. My guess is they go B1G and hop Texas follows, which they might well do. If they don't KU will be the fall back. Same scenario with the SEC.

The very idea that a small state like Oklahoma could tell the SEC or B1G they have to take both schools is laughable. Fans like it because it hearkens back to the days of the political conventions and back room dealing where your buddy can come for the ride. But the world is corporate now, especially at the top. Wild ride gangsters were replaced by theme park corporations in Las Vegas. The same can be said of the major college conferences. Too much money at stake to leave it to "wing it" amateurs.

So you need to give up on the idea that any schools are tie to each other. They are not. A Football game in November is the only real tie of OK State and OU. Honestly there is no reason to think that needs to end with a conference change. OU would have enough leverage IMO to demand even from the B1G that bedlam be allowed to continue in November, much like the deal the Pac-12 has with Stanford and USC to host Notre Dame around Turkey Day weekend. That would be a unique situation for the B1G, but nothing new in the ACC or SEC.

The comment above points to the B12 and Texas hurt feelings being the reason the A&M game ceased, ditto for KU and Mizzou, as there is no such block on the SEC side to playing an OOC rival in November as Florida, Kentucky, Georgia and South Carolina do. Actually it amazes me how personally Big 12 folks take these corporate decisions by schools.

Bottom line, OU is not going to stay in a conference that has long term survival issues and accept $20M less a year in media payout to do so out of loyalty to OK State. Over a decade you are talking at least $250M difference. Friendships end over less than that.

In your opinion, if Oklahoma is willing to give up either its annual rivalry with OK State or its annual rivalry with Texas as you suggest, which one do you think they will choose? My opinion was that they would choose a third option in which they could keep both.

I think at 15 and a semi final you would tend to see divisions of 5 and a wild card so that the second best team in the toughest division has a shot to knock out the weakest divisional champ.

For instance lets say the ACC split as follows:

North - ND, VT, BC, Pitt, Syracuse
Central - UVa, UNC, Duke, WF, NC State
South -Louisville, Clemson, FSU, Miami, GT

By and large ND and VT would be favored in the North, Clemson and FSU in the South. Someone would win the Central EVERY YEAR.

If you go to pods of 4, the second best team in the toughest pod is shut out.

If you play without divisions and have say 3 or 4 annual rivals, you are back at some grossly unequal schedules to derive teams 1-4

No one gets to 18 with everyone they might want. Even getting to 16 with everyone you want is difficult.

The regular season would lose all relevance. You'd see fewer big-time OOC matchups because they wouldn't matter.

Big 10/21

Pacific: Washington/Oregon/Cal/Stanford/USC/UCLA/UA
Lakes: Iowa/Nebraska/Minnesota/Illinois/NW/MSU/Purdue
Atlantic: MD/Rutgers/Ohio State/Penn State/Michigan/Indiana/PSU

Washington vs Michigan, Ohio State vs Iowa would be an interesting semi final.

Big 12/15

Mountain: WSU/Utah/Colorado/ASU/Oregon State
Gulf: TT/Texas/Baylor/TCU/OSU
Plains: Oklahoma/Kansas/KSU/Cincy/Iowa State

Oklahoma vs Cincinnati, Texas v Utah would draw eyes.
SEC

East: WVa/UK/TN/SC/UGa
South: Florida/Auburn/Bama/Ole Miss/MSU
West: LSU/TAMU/Ark/Mizzou/Vandy

Bama v WVa, Georgia vs. LSU would do well

ACC:

North: ND/Pitt/BC/Syracuse/Miami
Central: VT/UVa/UNC/NCSU/Duke
South: WF/Louisville/GT/Clemson/FSU

ND vs NC State, Clemson vs Syracuse works.

Point is that every conference has three divisional races for a total of 12. The wild card races would be interesting. In this particular split the bigger P12 schools join the Big 10 and obtain financial stability and relevance. The smaller P12 schools join Texas and OU in the B12.

This is a move that shuts out the SEC and ACC from adding schools.

(03-01-2019 11:40 AM)ken d Wrote:  This thread assumes that the hypothetical scenario posed has already happened. We aren’t to debate whether it ever will happen, or whether it should happen. The only purpose is to speculate how FBS conferences would react if it did. This is the hypothetical scenario.

The NCAA has agreed to allow all FBS conferences to determine their champion however they see fit, subject only to the following limitations. Conferences with at least 10 members may stage a season ending championship game. Conferences with more than 14 members may stage a four-team championship tournament, provided that the Conference Final Game is played no later than December 10th. All current rules regarding divisions and scheduling within a conference are no longer in effect.

The question is simple. Which conferences, if any, would add new members if these changes were adopted? Feel free to give reasons why you think they would change, how one conference’s decisions would affect other conferences, or to comment on how this might affect the CFP and bowl structure.

Since you haven't said that the CFP has been altered, I'll assume it exists in its current form.
The B1G and the SEC will expand or not without regard to the new concerence championship freedoms. Neither would take advantage of the tournament games even if they did expand. They would not put their best teams through two additional post-season games, risking the injuries and draft-prospect withdrawals, just to monetize those extra games. They will be more focused on the CFP prize. Revenue is not their biggest problem.

The Big XII cannot expand because ESPN has told them not to. (ESPN has also made it clear that no G5 schools will be promoted to P5 conferences.)

The PAC 12 has no candidates for expansion. If they could, somehow, grow beyond 14 teams, Larry Scott would air the tournament games on the PAC Network and lose money.

The ACC has demonstrated in the past that they want to control the crowning process in their conference, so leaving it to the chance of a tournament outcome might scare them a little. But they have no expansion prospects, anyway.

Thank you Ken_D! I would legislate it for 17-member conferences to have a 4-team playoff.

6-team divisions are ideal. 18-member conferences would become viable. 24 would work just as well.

C-USA could then absorb the Sunbelt and make 4 solid divisions:
Marshall
WKU
MTSU
ODU
Charlotte
Appy State

Coastal Carolina
Georgia State
Georgia Southern
South Alabama
Troy
ULaMo

FIU
FAU
UAB
USM
La Tech
ULaLa

Ark State
Rice
UNT
UTSA
UTEP
Texas State

(03-01-2019 11:40 AM)ken d Wrote:  This thread assumes that the hypothetical scenario posed has already happened. We aren’t to debate whether it ever will happen, or whether it should happen. The only purpose is to speculate how FBS conferences would react if it did. This is the hypothetical scenario.

The NCAA has agreed to allow all FBS conferences to determine their champion however they see fit, subject only to the following limitations. Conferences with at least 10 members may stage a season ending championship game. Conferences with more than 14 members may stage a four-team championship tournament, provided that the Conference Final Game is played no later than December 10th. All current rules regarding divisions and scheduling within a conference are no longer in effect.

The question is simple. Which conferences, if any, would add new members if these changes were adopted? Feel free to give reasons why you think they would change, how one conference’s decisions would affect other conferences, or to comment on how this might affect the CFP and bowl structure.

Well---three of the P5 are already at 14. So--no expansion for those guys. The Big-12 likes the round robin and benefits from only dividing its pie 10 ways rather than 12-14....so I think they stand pat. The Pac12---thats the one I think would make a move into Texas to pick up 2 more members and go to a 4-team playoff. They are the ones that seem to be most in need of shaking things up. Adding central time zone games and adding the second most populous state in the nation to their fooprint makes a lot of sense. Add in the opportunity to make the Pac12 championship 4 game event---that just seems like something that the Pac12 would give great consideration to.

Beyond that, I there would be greater use of pods in the 14 team P5's. By creating smaller divisions, you open up more opportunity to play teams outside of your pod/division. I think that would benefit the cohesion and fan interest within these larger P5 conferences.

Among the G5--pods could make the creation of a nationwide "best of the rest" conference feasible. With 4 travel friendly 4-team to 5-team pods, the ability to merge reasonable travel schedules with an internal conference playoff structure would finally make a national conference potentially viable.

(03-01-2019 04:11 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(03-01-2019 11:40 AM)ken d Wrote:  This thread assumes that the hypothetical scenario posed has already happened. We aren’t to debate whether it ever will happen, or whether it should happen. The only purpose is to speculate how FBS conferences would react if it did. This is the hypothetical scenario.

The NCAA has agreed to allow all FBS conferences to determine their champion however they see fit, subject only to the following limitations. Conferences with at least 10 members may stage a season ending championship game. Conferences with more than 14 members may stage a four-team championship tournament, provided that the Conference Final Game is played no later than December 10th. All current rules regarding divisions and scheduling within a conference are no longer in effect.

The question is simple. Which conferences, if any, would add new members if these changes were adopted? Feel free to give reasons why you think they would change, how one conference’s decisions would affect other conferences, or to comment on how this might affect the CFP and bowl structure.

Well---three of the P5 are already at 14. So--no expansion for those guys. The Big-12 likes the round robin and benefits from only dividing its pie 10 ways rather than 12-14....so I think they stand pat. The Pac12---thats the one I think would make a move into Texas to pick up 2 more members and go to a 4-team playoff. They are the ones that seem to be most in need of shaking things up. Adding central time zone games and adding the second most populous state in the nation to their fooprint makes a lot of sense. Add in the opportunity to make the Pac12 championship 4 game event---that just seems like something that the Pac12 would give great consideration to.

Beyond that, I there would be greater use of pods in the 14 team P5's. By creating smaller divisions, you open up more opportunity to play teams outside of your pod/division. I think that would benefit the cohesion and fan interest within these larger P5 conferences.

The hypothetical treats conferences with 10-14 members exactly the same. Only going past that number would provide an opportunity for an additional revenue source. As matters stand today, I see little incentive for any realignment. If the prospect of having conference semifinal games isn't viewed as a plus by the SEC, B1G or ACC, then I don't see any incentive for realignment short of a grand slam like snagging UT and Oklahoma. Nothing else is both valuable enough and even remotely possible.

(03-01-2019 04:27 PM)ken d Wrote:  

(03-01-2019 04:11 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(03-01-2019 11:40 AM)ken d Wrote:  This thread assumes that the hypothetical scenario posed has already happened. We aren’t to debate whether it ever will happen, or whether it should happen. The only purpose is to speculate how FBS conferences would react if it did. This is the hypothetical scenario.

The NCAA has agreed to allow all FBS conferences to determine their champion however they see fit, subject only to the following limitations. Conferences with at least 10 members may stage a season ending championship game. Conferences with more than 14 members may stage a four-team championship tournament, provided that the Conference Final Game is played no later than December 10th. All current rules regarding divisions and scheduling within a conference are no longer in effect.

The question is simple. Which conferences, if any, would add new members if these changes were adopted? Feel free to give reasons why you think they would change, how one conference’s decisions would affect other conferences, or to comment on how this might affect the CFP and bowl structure.

Well---three of the P5 are already at 14. So--no expansion for those guys. The Big-12 likes the round robin and benefits from only dividing its pie 10 ways rather than 12-14....so I think they stand pat. The Pac12---thats the one I think would make a move into Texas to pick up 2 more members and go to a 4-team playoff. They are the ones that seem to be most in need of shaking things up. Adding central time zone games and adding the second most populous state in the nation to their fooprint makes a lot of sense. Add in the opportunity to make the Pac12 championship 4 game event---that just seems like something that the Pac12 would give great consideration to.

Beyond that, I there would be greater use of pods in the 14 team P5's. By creating smaller divisions, you open up more opportunity to play teams outside of your pod/division. I think that would benefit the cohesion and fan interest within these larger P5 conferences.

The hypothetical treats conferences with 10-14 members exactly the same. Only going past that number would provide an opportunity for an additional revenue source. As matters stand today, I see little incentive for any realignment. If the prospect of having conference semifinal games isn't viewed as a plus by the SEC, B1G or ACC, then I don't see any incentive for realignment short of a grand slam like snagging UT and Oklahoma. Nothing else is both valuable enough and even remotely possible.

Gotcha. I misread it. I was thinking 14 would get you the 4 team playoff. Not sure there is enough payoff to add anyone in that case unless its someone like Texas and Oklahoma. The rule might actually be more appealing to the lower revenue conferences where the revenue difference from adding more teams would be insignificant---but differentiating the league via a unique championship structure might drastically boost the leagues national profile. It could be a place where someone like CUSA or the MAC could make a real name for themselves. If a TV deal coould be worked out---it might even make sense for the AAC to grab 4 MW teams and go to some sort of pod system with a 4-team playoff.

The SEC would become seriously too powerful if it could pull Texas, Oklahoma, Kansas, and WVU from the Big 12, and have a 4-team playoff.

UF, UGa, USC, WVU, Tenn, UK
Vandy, OM, MSU, Bama, Aub, LSU
UT, OU, A&M, Mizzou, Kansas, Arkansas

The B1G, ACC, and PAC12 would not be able to follow. What's left of the Big 12 would probably rip into the AAC and/or MWC to salvage exit fees and NCAA credits.