Win5002

Griffin was right it was a penalty.

There is a real simple way of fixing this whole thing in the current setup that involves no more games and actually would create a 24 team playoff and if you want you can keep the stupid bowl games. Although I think the whole idea of a post-season exhibition game played many times 4 weeks after the season is one of the dumbest ideas ever thought of. You create a 24 team playoff by having the 5 P5 conference champs and the highest G5 league using conference semi-finals instead of just a CCG. You also facilitate this to not involve any more games by using the last game of the season probably the week after Thanksgiving as a floating game where you start the conference semi-finals and also every other team in the league is assigned a game to play(hence the last week being a floating game). I don't know if you could do the last week of the season Thanksgiving weekend instead since there are so many rivalry games that weekend but maybe they could get used to the idea of being the week before Thanksgiving. Each league can do some type of ticket/gate revenue sharing among the league members to make it work. Each league gets to monetize their own conference semi-final games. If you can do that over the Thanksgiving weekend you can space those out over Friday/Saturday to have as few games overlap as possible for maximum viewership. Then everyone would play their way in and we would have a true championship without involving any extra games. If leagues were all 16 or more like the new SEC I think 6 teams each league and seeded like the NFL playoffs would work well. This idea wouldn't involve anymore games if we did away with the bowl games.

I think you certainly need to flip #1 & #4 on this list.

I hate UT & OU to the SEC for CFB. I also, didn't like those two to the B1G. BUT if the B1G swooped in at the last moment to get UT, OU, USC, UCLA, UW, OR and one or both of Cal/Stanford with the addition of ND even if its 6 games until their contract is out would UT prefer that situation? Especially if UT was given the opportunity to choose 1 or maybe even 2 regional rivalries of TEXAS' choosing? Maybe other regional rivalries is not an issue and they want to cut the other Texas schools off but if it was needed I would do it as the B1G. Those are 4 huge brands. If the SEC secures Texas forever the B1G will regret that loss. Even if they pick up secondary brands in Ga. Tech & FSU it never works the same. UT academics and the SEC seems an odd fit.

CFB would be so much better if we did realignment to 4 leagues that put ALL of the old rivalries back together and a group of 72 teams split off and formed their own division. Lets settle rivalries on the field and not message board insults in place of games or TV revenue pissing matches. You can essentially put every traditional rivalry game back together and build the sport nationally if you did this below. B1G: OSU, Mich., ND, MSU, Wisky, Ia., Illinois, NU, Ind., Purdue, Mn., USC, UCLA, UW, Or., Cal, Stanford, AZ.**this gives ND all of its big rivalries in conference and a wide footprint and brings back all the old Rose Bowl rivalries. So even though this conference spans the widest area it feels natural in that it brings back a lot of rivalries even if some are not traditional season games.ACC: PSU, Maryland, Rutgers, WVU, Clemson, NC, NC ST., Duke, BC, Va Tech, Va., WF, Ga. Tech, Syrcuse, Pitt UCONN, Cincy, UCF or USF,brings back old Big East rivalry games and gives them PSU to headline the league for football and PSU is set up as king of the region for recruiting, exposure.Big 12: UT, OU, Neb., A&M, Arky, TT, KU, KSU, ISU, Missouri, Col., Baylor, TCU, ASU, Utah, BYU, Boise St., HoustonBrings back the rivalries mentioned earlier.SEC: Bama, Auburn, LSU, Ole Miss, MSU, Fl., Ga., KY, Tn., SC, Vandy, FSU, Miami, Louisville, Cincy Plus 2 more. also, if SEC wanted all of Florida they add UCF & USC and the ACC takes others.This gives the SEC two past football schools in FSU & Miami and they pretty much own the state of Florida. Louisville and Cincy fit in the northern footprint well and add basketball.You can argue the last team or two in the B12/ACC & SEC but what fan wouldn't enjoy seeing these rivalries come back all within conferences? They are all pretty equal and engage all regions of the country and then division 1 can negotiate their contract as one. The only two real rivalry games might be PSU vs OSU and Clemson vs FSU but PSU is set in a good position again and that leaves FSU vs Clemson but I think consolidating all 3 Florida teams trumps that.Each league gets to 18 and conferences have 6-8 teams compete in conference playoffs to determine the CFP. Bowl games are finished. Each league has a single division standings and goes to 10 games. Lock in 3-4 rivals and against other teams play them at a frequency that maximizes content of games. Some may be 2 out of every 3 years, some may be 2 out of 4 years, 1 out of 3 yrs or even 1 out of 4 years. You design the matchups so you get the most desired set of matchups. If 6 or 8 teams make the conference playoffs that gives enough access it doesn't have to be rotated equally and for teams to worry about advantages of playing a team too often.Can any college football fans argue what we have is better than this? I dont think so.

Your probably not going to need separate divisions in a year or two anyway. You can have one set of standings and lock in 3-4 rivals and rotate around the rest of the league. Also, depending on the size of the league if it is deregulated you don't have to play the other teams the same frequency. You could play some 2 out of 3 years, some 1 out of two years and some 2 out of 6 years. In a 16 or 18 team league this makes a lot of sense.

You have to ask yourself how much more can Arkansas contribute to their fundraising in the athletic department if they were winning again. How much more is their radio deals worth, how much more in apparel sales do they get? Does that create a travel savings? Those numbers add up and eat into any tv revenue advantage. Also, would a Neb./Arkansas addition help bridge some of the revenue gap with the SEC? You can certainly argue the content of Arkansas is worth a lot more in the Big 12 than the SEC. Finally, when does winning matter? Does anyone hang banners for being in the league with the highest tv revenue?

A poster or two mentioned earlier the PAC 12 should sell more of their T3 content on T2 level to get more revenue. They didn't have very many games falling to T3 and those games won't command T2 increases. A lot of weeks it was one game and something like OSU vs Az.

I see very little reason to do pods. Instead go with a single set of division standings and play teams at different frequencies. Pick 3-4 annual rivals, pick some that play at 50% of the time, some that play 33% of the time and maybe some that play as little as 25% of the time. This allows the league the most flexibility in scheduling and getting the matchups they want. Then you just take the top 2 for the conference championship or if we are down to 4 power leagues probably the top 4 for semi-finals. As sports fans we could hope for the elimination of bowl games and increase the conference playoffs to 6 and run it similar to the NFL playoffs/seeding.

The pods could be scheduling component but you have a single set of standings. I wouldn't even even rotate evenly through pods, like I mentioned some schools you play 50% of the time some 33% and some 25% in a larger conference.

I really wouldn't focus on divisions so much. There is already a lot of discussion about allowing conferences to do away with divisions and have a single set of standings. It doesn't hurt that Delaney who helped stop the ACC from being able to do away with divisions now has openly talked about supporting it. It serves a lot of purposes. It gives more flexibility scheduling wise and helps get the best 2 or 4 teams later in conference playoffs. Scheduling flexibility would help any conference expansion also. Its a lot easier to maximize matchups and reduce travel costs if teams lock in 3-4 annual games, play some on a 50% basis, some on a 25% basis and maybe even some 1/6 or 1/5. I think the PAC could be split between the Big 12 & B1G even. It gives each of those leagues a late night game that they can't fill now. It gives each league 4 time slots each day for games and the PAC on their own is just not strong enough. It also would give the PAC more exposure to other parts of the country because they would be conference mates with 2 leagues that have a better fan base. The only thing that would concern me if the PAC were split between the B1G & Big 12 would be a scenario where the Big 12 doesn't get one of the Southern Cal teams. The only way I can see the PAC improving their tv revenues by significant amounts to stay competitive is if they were willing to put their T1 & T2 games in time slots that networks typically don't get great games, so they are the best game in town. The easiest slot is 7PM PST/9PM CST but PAC teams don't like that because its late and some of the country goes to bed. Some would say they already do but those are typically the lower tier games. I think they need to put their better games on then and see how they do with no other competition from the other P5 leagues at that time slot. The other thing they could do is try and allocate more T1 and T2 games to Thursday and Friday nights although Friday nights can lose some viewers due to high school products but usually the best games are not on those nights. The ACC might do better by willing to allow some of their T1 & T2 games to go to Thurs./Fri. also. If the PAC was divided between the Big 12 & B1G (leaving WSU & OSU out) it would sure be easier to solve the whole playoff thing through expanded playoff conference championships to at least 4 and then producing a final four in football. We would have no selection committees and politics, it would just play itself out.

I completely disagree streaming doesn't have an effect whatsoever on whether regional rivalries. Streaming is simply the delivery method. Amazon may have money to throw at content but that doesn't determine which rivalries and what games are important to the general public. Actually, I think there is a lot of argument that there may be sports revenue peak from a tv standpoint coming if not in 2025 or at least the next tv contract that may allow for consideration of going back to a more regionalized setup. That may be within a P4 league but they would be smart to put those games back in place. I think the sport overall would be better off if we get a P4 of 64-72 teams that negotiates their tv contract as one entity. A competition of who makes more between the B1G or SEC is not going to be the best overall situation for the sport of CFB.

When talking about realignment ideas/fantasies I'm surprised we don't hear more about the B1G trying to add ND along with USC, UCLA, Stanford, CAL, UW & OR. If we went away from divisions ND could play USC, Stanford, UM, MSU & Purdue every year as conference games in that setup. Those were all the traditional rivals ND use to play every year on their schedule.

This site has all sports tv ratings. Below is the NFL page. http://www.sportsmediawatch.com/nfl-tv-ratings-viewership-nbc-cbs-fox-espn-nfln-regular-season-playoffs/