Here’s another idea, inspired by the idea of each conference having pods. Let’s have 4 super conferences. Each conference would have 18 rather than 16 teams, split up into 3 pods of 6. This opens up 15 rather 7 additional slots. 8 of those would be the rest of Big XII. That leaves room for 7 additional teams to play at the top level. My suggestion would be Notre Dame and six other teams from the non-power 5 conferences that have performed well recently. UCF, Boise State, and Appalachian State come to mind. There would be 12 pod winners, so it would work out well for having a 12 team playoff.
That would be a great idea if these were professional sports teams, but they’re not. For one thing, colleges have many sports teams, and it would be a nightmare to have them all play in different conferences, with several switching each year.
This relates to the above point. I don’t understand the connection between academic stature and athletics, either, but university administrators certainly behave as though they feel it exists.
I think schools like Northwestern and Vanderbilt serve an important function for their conferences by giving them academic credibility, and in return they get the high-level athletics (even if they usually lose) which distinguishes them from the other elite schools they’re competing for students with.
I remember when the Big 10 admitted Nebraska, it was quite controversial, with Northwestern in particular complaining that the conference would be watering down its academic standards. Admittedly, they did end up going for the money grab in the end, but the point is that this is something schools care about.
Which is why promotion/relegation could never work in college football; the motivations of college football programs are entirely different from those of professional sports teams. If Northwestern goes to the MAC in exchange for Northern Illinois, it would be seen as a huge blow to the credibility of the whole Big 10, not just an embarrassment for Northwestern. And if Northwestern can’t compete at the highest level, they might as well not have a football program at all; because the purpose of the program is to brand NU as a “Big” school, not to win games or even to generate revenue.
As a fan, yeah, rewind to the 80s and add an eight-team playoff. 10 is the optimal size for a conference, as Uncle Jocko explained, and is also small enough that the schools can all be reasonably close together and develop legitimate rivalries. Oklahoma and Kansas have no place in the Pacific-12. (Neither do Colorado and Utah, for that matter, but let’s not make a bad situation worse.
I think it’s a image thing… think “Ivy League”- it both means a certain strata of prestigious New England universities, AND a specific sports conference composed of those schools.
But it’s not necessarily like that; most conferences have academically exalted members and not so grand ones. Think LSU vs. Vanderbilt, Nebraska vs. Northwestern, or Louisville vs. Duke.
Yes, and the Big 10 (or 1G or whatever they’re calling themselves these days) are very proud of how many of their member schools are in the AAU.
Here’s one option for realignment that I think is interesting, using the 4 conferences with 3 pods of 6 teams each method.
SEC
Pod 1
Alabama
Florida
Georgia
Auburn
Tennesse
South Carolina
Pod 2
LSU
Mississippi
Mississippi State
Kentucky
Vanderbilt
Mizzou
Pod 3
Texas
Texas A&M
Oklahoma
Arkansas
Houston
Memphis
ACC
Pod 1
Clemson
Florida State
Georgia Tech
Miami
Louisville
Central Florida
Pod 2
Notre Dame
Pitt
Boston College
Syracuse
West Virginia
Appalachian State
Pod 3
North Carolina
North Carolina State
Duke
Virginia
Virginia Tech
Wake Forest
Big 18
Pod 1
Nebraska
Iowa
Cincinnati
Kansas
Kansas State
Iowa State
Pod 2
Ohio State
Michigan
Michigan State
Penn State
Wisconsin
Minnesota
Pod 3
Indiana
Purdue
Maryland
Rutgers
Illinois
Northwestern
Pac 18
Pod 1
UCLA
USC
Cal
Stanford
Arizona
Arizona State
Pod 2
Oregon
Oregon State
Washington
Washington State
Colorado
Boise State
Pod 3
Utah
Oklahoma State
Texas Tech
TCU
Baylor
BYU
No underachiever likes the concept of pro/rel. And I guess I don’t care about any of the stuff that schools and fans do. I just want what I want because it seems more fair and more entertaining.
I’ve got even more work to do on this idea than I do with election reform. But that’s why I’m here on this earth. To plant the seeds for future generations to harvest.
That’s true. The issue, of course, is that most of the schools in the AAC, Conference USA, Mountain West, Sun Belt conference, and MAC have no chance against Alabama or Ohio State. Other than the top programs like UCF, Appalachian State, Boise State, Cincinnati, and a few others, they don’t even have a chance against a middle of the pack school from the Power 5(now likely to be 4) like West Virginia, Boston College, or Wisconsin. IMHO those schools would be better off in their own division rather than competing against the top programs.
I think that one of the problems with Division I college sports is, you have schools that have no business playing each other in things like men’s tennis or women’s soccer having to travel hundreds of miles for a “conference game” just because their football teams are in the same conference. Football and men’s basketball can have their own set of “super conferences” while other sports can form new, more localized, conferences to make it easier on everyone.
Example: a Northern California Athletic Conference can consist of Cal, Stanford, San Jose State, St. Mary’s, USF ahem San Francisco, Santa Clara, Pacific, UC-Davis, Sacramento State, Fresno State, and maybe throw in Nevada (Reno), Cal Poly, and Cal State Bakersfield as well.
A Northwest Athletic Conference can include Oregon, Oregon State, Washington, Washington State, Portland, Portland State, Seattle, Gonzaga, Eastern Washington, Boise State, Idaho, and Idaho State.
Back when the conference shake up started a few years ago, I read an article suggesting promotion and relegation. Basically it was 4 major conferences with 16 teams each, like the SEC, Big10, PAC however many, and ACC. Within each conference there were two groups of 8 who played each other with maybe some cross division games.
Below the majors, were 4 secondary conferences, like the MAC, Mountain West, AAC, and something else. Same structure as the major conferences, with 16 teams in each conference.
Then after each season, the worst two teams in each of the major conferences were relegated to the minor conferences, and the top two teams of the minor conferences were promoted to the major conferences.
I liked the idea.
So basically you’re recommending a system where the current top programs will always stay on top, with never any room for another school to break through to the top. In other words, European football without the possibility of an oil tycoon buying your team to get you into the CL.
College football isn’t European soccer though. The alumni base attends games and provides booster funding. Relegating Vanderbilt from the SEC and telling them next year they’ll be playing in the Mountain West won’t work.
As many schools get promoted as get relegated, no?
Yes, but good college football athletes are typically only in school for 3 years, and high school recruiting for the following year begins well before the end of the college season. For basketball, the best players are only there for 1-2 years. So if I’m a very good college football player and deciding between Kansas State and Oklahoma, I might normally consider Kansas State to get the spotlight, in lieu of being part of a full roster of excellent players at Oklahoma. But if there’s a chance that Kansas State might be relegated, I’d likely choose the safer option of Oklahoma, just to be certain that I’d be playing against top level talent in order to get drafted by an NFL team.
So how would that work? Suppose that Duke goes 3-10 in football, but wins March Madness. Would they be relegated, or stay in the ACC? The track team wins the conference and comes in third at Nationals, but the swim team doesn’t win a single meet. The golf team and the tennis team have average years, while lacrosse and gymnastics put up great records. Baseball team finishes at the bottom of the conference, but the softball team is solid.
What team’s record decides whether or not the school stays in the conference?
Well, presumably each team can be in a different zone; e.g. Kentucky basketball could be in the top zone, while Kentucky football could be in the bottom zone. All you’re doing is determining a schedule. The biggest issues are what I pointed out earlier, plus the premise that a college team’s performance one year predicts its quality the following year. That might be true for Alabama, Clemson, Notre Dame etc. in football or UNC, Duke, Kentucky, etc. in basketball, but certainly not true for most school programs.
I’d like for them to forget the whole thing and leave the conferences where they are. I’d much prefer to have my conference have teams from the same general geographic area and with a history of rivalry with my team.
And now the ACC, Big Ten and Pac-12 are set to announce that they have formed an “alliance” in a “countermove” to the SEC because college football has turned into a goddam Game of Thrones knock off.