Jump to content

Realignment talk not going away

The Tower

By The Tower
in Football

 Share

Recommended Posts

Recommended

Posted by Sandbagging Steve,

How many teams will be left when the dust settles in a few years? I think there's a way for all the teams to still have some involvement. I will explain that at the end of this list. Here's my list of the top 32 programs and a list if it goes to 48. There's some debate if it goes to 48, but not much debate if it stops at 32. I guess one could debate Arizona State, but that's about it. The top 32 at least come close to carrying their own weight. Everyone below that line is losing money for t

This is great content for free.

Recommended by immamac

  • Hook 'Em

6 reactions

Go to this post
  • Replies 36.9k
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

  • bullet

    1507

  • Hurtlocker

    1323

  • Al_4_ISU

    1079

  • BurntOrange&White

    976

Popular Days

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Days

Popular Posts

Hiphopopotamos
Hiphopopotamos
MAUFRAIS
MAUFRAIS

Aggy should abstain so the vote is 13-0 and then we can then brand it on their dog.

jofus
jofus

Posted Images

utee94

utee94 15823

Posted
Posted
3 minutes ago, Poolflood said:

Fuck the pack-16.  Needs to be the big-16.  Ditch WVU and add the AZ schools, USC, UCLA, Stanford,  Cal and Colorado.   

Ditch Baylor too.  Obviously.

And 16-team conferences blow.  Also, don't give a rat's ass about Arizona schools or Colorado.  

So ditch Baylor and WVU, add USC, UCLA, Stanford, and I guess Berkeley if we must.

Now that's a decent 12-team conference.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
LTbear

LTbear 4169

Posted
Posted (edited)
10 minutes ago, utee94 said:

Ditch Baylor too.  Obviously.

I vote no. 

Agreed 16 teams sucks though. 12 teams is perfect. Even 14 teams sucks. The current setup in the SEC is absolute madness. Some teams don't get home visits from cross-division teams but about once a decade. That's not a conference. That's just a like-minded group of rednecks. 

Edited by LTbear
  • Like 6
  • Haha 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Hurtlocker

Hurtlocker 2212

Posted
Posted
On 10/14/2019 at 2:45 PM, markstanco said:

I dont recall if I read it here or elsewhere, but what happened with LSU being upset with the sec? And how likely is it that they put out feelers to other conferences (if true)?

As stated, nothing was big enough to make a move, just big enough to bitch.   There was a lot of grumbling about the scheduling changes with having to move to 14 and the unbalanced aspect that it created.   At the time LSU had to play Georgia and Florida, while Bama was playing Tennessee and Kentucky.    Having the Florida/Tennessee permanent rival a thing wasn't helping grumbling at all either as LSU didn't want perm rivals.

Then there was the issue of how the SEC seeds bowl games, where LSU got the snub.   At the end of the day though, its a lot of grumbling about Alabama's advantages, which actually got into the local media, but not much else.   Winning solves everything.   

One side note on LSU though, they are one of the few programs out there that could go anywhere and not really lose money.   The Big 12 is only a little behind the SEC, and not by a number that makes a difference.  Let's say the  TV pays out $4m less, currently, LSU made like $8m profit on $145m in revenues.  However, LSU brings far more than $4m in value.   The Big 12 or the ACC's media contracts would explode in value with LSU.

Money isn't really going to be the reason for LSU to stay or leave.  They'll be paid no matter where they go.   If they do move, it will be to have an easier, or more consistent, path to championships.  

  • Like 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites
notre dame joe

notre dame joe 187

Posted
Posted
6 hours ago, Hurtlocker said:

 At the time LSU had to play Georgia and Florida, while Bama was playing Tennessee and Kentucky.    Having the Florida/Tennessee permanent rival a thing wasn't helping grumbling at all either as LSU didn't want perm rivals.

Piling on, the divisional alignment means: 

AU plays UF and UGA, 

LSU plays UF

Bama plays neither. 

 

The final SECw standings are  very heavily weighed before the games are played.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Thiefery

Thiefery 4995

Posted
Posted
1 hour ago, BluTechsan said:

I'm about to the point of not caring who goes where but would love to see the P5 realign into six 12 team conferences and expand the playoffs to 8 teams.

Yeah, feel the same.  Conferences shouldn't be more than 12 schools, and be a realistic driving distance between them for the most part. If these rumors of AZ schools is in fact true, then we might as get ready for a true merger with the PAC.  AZ schools reaching out, if true, behind the scenes screams of Mizzu.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Murfdogg21

Murfdogg21 4412

Posted
Posted (edited)
1 hour ago, BluTechsan said:

I'm about to the point of not caring who goes where but would love to see the P5 realign into six 12 team conferences and expand the playoffs to 8 teams.

So basically where we were 8 years ago if the powers that be would have just accepted a (8 team) playoff? No destruction of the Big 12 and Big East, no half ass attempt at super conferences by PAC, SEC, and Big10, etc. 

Edited by Murfdogg21
  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Valmy77

Valmy77 13226

Posted
Posted
10 minutes ago, TrashMaster G said:

Because the BigXII CCG is such a good idea with 10 teams?  F that.

It is a worse idea with 12. At least with 10 we know we are getting the two best teams in the league.

Fuck those years watching Missouri get blown out by OU by 50 in our "championship game"

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Nueces River Rat

Nueces River Rat 5539

Posted
Posted
15 hours ago, LTbear said:

UT - BU - TCU - TT - UA - ASU

OU - OSU - KSU - ISU - KU - WVU

Permanent cross division rivals to protect OU/UT.

 

Will never happen. But wouldn't be awful IMO. 

So then we could go the SEC SEC SEC scheduling model of three cupcakes for non conference with one of them being played in November to pad the polls.   

I say why the hell not and let the eSECpn types scream about only so they can show their decades long hypocrisy  on display.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites
SwanderedTalent

SwanderedTalent 5761

Posted
Posted

I really think what would make the most sense for CFB is much smaller conferences with playoff-playin alliances. 

The Pac-16 would be shitty because you'd be sharing a conference with a bunch of schools you never play and with whose alumni you never interact. But if we wanted to do an 8-team conference with a round-robin schedule and our conference champion playing a Pacific Coast Conference champion in the first round of the playoff, that could work. 

Split up the Pac-12, Big Ten, Big 12, SEC, and ACC, and then realign them (along with whatever aspects if any of G5) into eight conferences playing round-robin schedules to determine their playoff representative. That would make for a more meaningful regular season where winning your conference would be paramount, while not sacrificing the post-season with unaligned bowl bids (i.e., Texas to the Cotton Bowl and Nebraska to the Orange circa 1983). 

Probably not realistically feasible, but the best way to organize it I can think of. 

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Thiefery

Thiefery 4995

Posted
Posted
31 minutes ago, SwanderedTalent said:

I really think what would make the most sense for CFB is much smaller conferences with playoff-playin alliances. 

The Pac-16 would be shitty because you'd be sharing a conference with a bunch of schools you never play and with whose alumni you never interact. But if we wanted to do an 8-team conference with a round-robin schedule and our conference champion playing a Pacific Coast Conference champion in the first round of the playoff, that could work. 

Split up the Pac-12, Big Ten, Big 12, SEC, and ACC, and then realign them (along with whatever aspects if any of G5) into eight conferences playing round-robin schedules to determine their playoff representative. That would make for a more meaningful regular season where winning your conference would be paramount, while not sacrificing the post-season with unaligned bowl bids (i.e., Texas to the Cotton Bowl and Nebraska to the Orange circa 1983). 

Probably not realistically feasible, but the best way to organize it I can think of. 

yeah.. but the commissioners wouldn't do with that when they are making bank plus have the power in selecting which schools play in which bowl (SEC).  Until school presidents decide to unite as one, negotiate TV deals as one, then and only then, CFB will have a real chance to make all this shit right

Link to comment
Share on other sites
TrashMaster G

TrashMaster G 17557

Posted
Posted
48 minutes ago, Valmy77 said:

It is a worse idea with 12. At least with 10 we know we are getting the two best teams in the league.

Fuck those years watching Missouri get blown out by OU by 50 in our "championship game"

It's a WORSE idea to have a guaranteed rematch?  Ok, nevermind.  I just figured out the kind of person I'm dealing with.  

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
6th Street

6th Street 6407

Posted
Posted
17 hours ago, Aqua Buddha said:

I'd rather do the Pac-16 but I could live with that.  Gets the Big 12 back to 12, more money, exposure in relevant markets and closer to CA, and a real conference title game.  Also, easy travel access into Phoenix.

 

Yes I'm sure AZ would love to cut off their biggest recruiting pipeline in CA.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Valmy77

Valmy77 13226

Posted
Posted (edited)
2 hours ago, TrashMaster G said:

It's a WORSE idea to have a guaranteed rematch?  Ok, nevermind. 

 

Not really. Often it was a rematch anyway, in the old Big 12 it was going to be a rematch roughly 50% of the time. But the only reason it would not be a rematch is because of the idiotic scenario that there are schools in your conference you do not play. Which is far worse than a rematch in your stupid CCG.

I am not a big fan of any conference championship game. The thing has been tried for decades now and it has never been fun or great really.

But if we are going to have one it is slightly less stupid if it is at least the best two teams in the league and not some 7-5 school that was in a weak as shit division arbitrarily.

Quote

I just figured out the kind of person I'm dealing with.  

Oh? And here I have been on this long quest of self discovery to see what sort of person I am, but you have figured it out! Pray tell what sort of person am I?

Edited by Valmy77
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
camel at sea

camel at sea 589

Posted
Posted
2 hours ago, 6th Street said:

Yes I'm sure AZ would love to cut off their biggest recruiting pipeline in CA.

The two Arizona schools are so far back in the CA recruiting pecking order that moving wouldn't impact them at all.  If anything, having the ability to sell "better more visible conference" to CA recruits might improve their situation. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
TrashMaster G

TrashMaster G 17557

Posted
Posted
49 minutes ago, Valmy77 said:

Not really. Often it was a rematch anyway, in the old Big 12 it was going to be a rematch roughly 50% of the time. But the only reason it would not be a rematch is because of the idiotic scenario that there are schools in your conference you do not play. Which is far worse than a rematch in your stupid CCG.

I am not a big fan of any conference championship game. The thing has been tried for decades now and it has never been fun or great really.

But if we are going to have one it is slightly less stupid if it is at least the best two teams in the league and not some 7-5 school that was in a weak as shit division arbitrarily.

Oh? And here I have been on this long quest of self discovery to see what sort of person I am, but you have figured it out! Pray tell what sort of person am I?

I liked the round robin with no CCG.  I thought it was the best option.  But, if you are going to have a CCG, doing it on top of a round robin is moronic.  At least with the CCG on top of a division setup is somewhat defensible from a competitive pov.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
notre dame joe

notre dame joe 187

Posted
Posted
50 minutes ago, camel at sea said:

The two Arizona schools are so far back in the CA recruiting pecking order that moving wouldn't impact them at all.  If anything, having the ability to sell "better more visible conference" to CA recruits might improve their situation. 

They're quite high on the pecking order for students gouged for out of state tuition.  That's a lost more important to the schools' bottom line.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
camel at sea

camel at sea 589

Posted
Posted
1 minute ago, notre dame joe said:

They're quite high on the pecking order for students gouged for out of state tuition.  That's a lost more important to the schools' bottom line.

I doubt the flow of out of state students from CA into the state of Arizona slows down if the two schools are playing in the Big 12.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites
CastHorn

CastHorn 811

Posted
Posted (edited)

Do y’all remember in 2012 when Mhver3 created so much fake smoke that College Football Live covered a whole segment about Florida St. & Clemson’s potential Big12 East division move? That memory feels like a fever dream.

Edited by CastHorn
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Doc Sam Beckett

Doc Sam Beckett 5793

Posted
Posted
1 minute ago, Al_4_ISU said:

Have you watched Rutgers lately?

Yeah, they're terrible and Maryland isn't much better. I think the same thing would happen with the Arizona schools. People get excited because we are talking about P5 programs instead of G5, but if you think about it, is it really that exciting of an addition? 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Al_4_ISU

Al_4_ISU 12463

Posted
Posted
4 minutes ago, Doc Sam Beckett said:

Yeah, they're terrible and Maryland isn't much better. I think the same thing would happen with the Arizona schools. People get excited because we are talking about P5 programs instead of G5, but if you think about it, is it really that exciting of an addition? 

I don't care about the AZ schools, but they're much better than Maryland or Rutgers.  It's not that exciting, but the Big 12 poaching instead of being poached is a good thing when you root for a school who's entire existence in college athletics was very much at risk in '10 and '11.

I'd prefer to go to some kind of system where you had 8 divisions of 9 schools that resembled the traditional conferences as much as possible.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites
gmr548

gmr548 16580

Posted
Posted
Yeah, they're terrible and Maryland isn't much better. I think the same thing would happen with the Arizona schools. People get excited because we are talking about P5 programs instead of G5, but if you think about it, is it really that exciting of an addition? 

Uh, Maryland is a goddamn juggernaut.

Sent from my SM-G920V using Tapatalk

Link to comment
Share on other sites
SwanderedTalent

SwanderedTalent 5761

Posted
Posted
3 hours ago, Al_4_ISU said:

I'd prefer to go to some kind of system where you had 8 divisions of 9 schools that resembled the traditional conferences as much as possible.

Everybody would actually prefer that, they just don't realize it yet.

The #1 reason for the attendance decline in CFB is, the fucking games mean less than they did 30 years ago. When you were in a conference with nothing but regionally aligned schools whose alumni were all around you, and you were all competing for the same single goal-- i.e., the SWC and the Cotton Bowl-- the games meant more. 

The conference slates have been badly watered down and the non-conference is filled with, well, filler. In 1990, Texas played Penn State, Colorado, and Oklahoma out of conference, then played a bunch of schools that it either had shared a conference with for more than 50 years, or who were geographically close (Houston). In 2019, we played LSU, we played Oklahoma in conference, we have three game against Texas schools in conference, and then the rest of the schedule is filler, and absent geographic interest, it always will be-- Texas versus Kansas State will never be inherently meaningful, even if we play it every year for 50 years. 

 

 

  • Like 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Al_4_ISU

Al_4_ISU 12463

Posted
Posted (edited)
13 hours ago, SwanderedTalent said:

Everybody would actually prefer that, they just don't realize it yet.

The #1 reason for the attendance decline in CFB is, the fucking games mean less than they did 30 years ago. When you were in a conference with nothing but regionally aligned schools whose alumni were all around you, and you were all competing for the same single goal-- i.e., the SWC and the Cotton Bowl-- the games meant more. 

The conference slates have been badly watered down and the non-conference is filled with, well, filler. In 1990, Texas played Penn State, Colorado, and Oklahoma out of conference, then played a bunch of schools that it either had shared a conference with for more than 50 years, or who were geographically close (Houston). In 2019, we played LSU, we played Oklahoma in conference, we have three game against Texas schools in conference, and then the rest of the schedule is filler, and absent geographic interest, it always will be-- Texas versus Kansas State will never be inherently meaningful, even if we play it every year for 50 years. 

 

 

While I've grown to find the current line up entertaining, I definitely miss having Nebraska and Missouri on the schedule every year.  Big 8 games always mean more to me than the games against the Texas schools.  In the inverse of your example, Iowa State vs. Kansas State is one of the longest running match ups in college football.  The series is a dead heat.  The fanbases are carbon copies of each other.  The game is always wild, dramatic, and heart breaking.

That just can't be replicated at this point.

Edited by Al_4_ISU
  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites
SwanderedTalent

SwanderedTalent 5761

Posted
Posted
46 minutes ago, Al_4_ISU said:

While I've grown to find the current line up entertaining, I definitely miss having Nebraska and Missouri on the schedule every year.  Big 8 games always mean more to me than the games against the Texas schools.  In the inverse of your example, Iowa State vs. Kansas State is one of the longest running match ups in college football.  The series is a dead heat.  The fanbases are carbon copies of each other.  The game is always wild, dramatic, and heart breaking.

That just can't be replicated at this point.

Bingo. Texas fans lose sight of the fact that as exciting as it is for West Virginia to come down here every other year and kick our asses and do the Horns down, they'd rather be playing Pitt. Iowa State would be better off playing the Big 8 (maybe minus Colorado) plus Iowa. Etc, etc. 

Geography matters. Our sport is trying to be post-geographic. It's fucking retarded and it's ruining the game.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

×
 Share
Go to topic listing


Football ... Basketball ... Baseball ... Other Sports ... Futbol ... 🤫995🤫 ... Gambling ... Movies & TV ... Music ... Hobbies ... Lulz ... Food & Travel ... Daily Texan ... Business and Markets ... Cloak Room ... Help ... For Sale ... Board Discussion ... Subscribe!... Donate!... Advertise... COOKIE MONSTER!

×
×
  • Create New...