Big 8, Kick Mizzou for Iowa.
Plus I wouldn't hate Notre Dame and Sconnie.
Plus I wouldn't hate Notre Dame and Sconnie.
I don't disagree with what Athletic proposed structurely. But I just don't see it happening as one of two things would be required:Dream scenario would be 7 10-team conferences as proposed by the Athletic in conjunction with the CST initiative. I made one adjustment to the Athletic's proposal (moving UCF to Big East with ND remaining an indy:
"Big East": BC, Cuse, Rutgers, Pitt, Louisville, WVU, VT, UC, UCF, Miami FL
ACC: Maryland, UVa, NCSt, UNC, Duke, WF, Clemson, S.Carolina, GT, FSU
SEC: Vandy, Tennessee, UK, UGA, UF, Bama, Auburn, Ole Miss, Miss St, LSU
B10: Penn St, Ohio St, Michigan, Mich ST, Purdue, IU, Illinois, Minnesota, Iowa, Wisconsin
Pac10: Washington, Wazzu, UO, ORSt, Cal, Stanford, USC, UCLA, Zona, AZ St
SWC: OU, OKSt, Arkansas, UT, TX A&M, TCU, BU, TT, SMU, Houston
Big Country: Utah, BYU, CU, Colorado St, KU, KSU, NU, Mizzou, ISU, Northwestern
12 team playoff, 7 auto bids, 5 at large.
Separate G5 playoff.
I love this idea.College football should be 8 regional 9 or 10 team conferences and one of those would be very much like what is laid out by most here.
Then the top teams each year play themselves into something like a "champions league", "europa league" and "uefa conference" for those who know that sport. It could be at the end of conference season in Nov/Dec or you play into it for the next year. You could make it so most teams at least make that third inter regional league and the few who don't just miss out instead of getting totally relegated and they only have a 9 or 10 game season instead of 13 or 14 game season. (think like top 16, next 16, next 16, then like 24 who don't qualify but can qualify again the next year)
The regional leagues could negotiate their own contracts so football hotbeds would still make more $, and the teams that make the champions league every single year would automatically make more too.
It's so dumb the way we are going instead of that. They could have achieved what they did in a more fair way and in a way that actually INCREASES interest for every single fan base.
The euro soccer team I follow is one where 1/3 of the time we make the Champions league and almost 2/3 of the time make whatever is just below that has gone by several names, once in a while neither. I still get really excited for the mid tier competition. It's not at all like the NIT, it's still a really cool thing that is very fun part of a majority of seasons. There could be a way for some of the lower tier teams to play into these three competitions too the same way really minor european pro teams can win their way in.
It doesn't even have to be a pure relegation system, it could just be a better conference season and a better inter regional "national championship" playoff league and one or two sub leagues that have 100x more intrigue than a "Cheezit Bowl" exhibition.
#2 is plausible and doable if bidding is open to providers beyond ESPN and Fox and packaging of the rights is done correctly (e.g. if you want the B10, you have to take the least valued conference along with it and CFP rights are rotated and shared equally amongst bidders). 75% of the total TV pool is shared equally and 25% is allocated based on TV ratings including CFP.I don't disagree with what Athletic proposed structurely. But I just don't see it happening as one of two things would be required:
IMO it is more likely we end up having a Power 2 consisting of 40-48 schools split between Big10 & SEC. There would also be a 2nd Tier comprised schools left out of Power 2 (22-30 schools) + select group of G5. The 2nd Tier would have its own CFP.
- One media rights deal would have to be negotiated that applies to all 70 schools. And the premium that could be obtained by a single negotiation would make Big10/SEC teams whole vs. what their current TV deal is AND bump up all the other schools $30M+ annually. Even Revenue Share.
- A single media rights deal would be negotiated for all 70 schools. And schools could agree on a formula for uneven revenue distribution. But schools would have to "earn" their premium value based on performance, viewership, etc.
I love this idea.
I think a similar model could be used for the current system. The coefficient could be used to determine how many teams get a spot from each conference in the playoffs. The data could be base on nonconfernce games from the current season and bowl and post season games the year before. So most years the BIG and SEC get 3 teams and the ACC and XII get 2 teams and 1 tram from the four next best conferences.
The great things about this is the distribution can change yearly, and no conference gets more than three. It makes the SEC and BIG have to prove they are the best ever year.
The coefficient can be set up so the SEC can't game the system with 4 nonconfernce games each year against cupcakes.
Dream scenario would be 7 10-team conferences as proposed by the Athletic in conjunction with the CST initiative. I made one adjustment to the Athletic's proposal (moving UCF to Big East with ND remaining an indy:
"Big East": BC, Cuse, Rutgers, Pitt, Louisville, WVU, VT, UC, UCF, Miami FL
ACC: Maryland, UVa, NCSt, UNC, Duke, WF, Clemson, S.Carolina, GT, FSU
SEC: Vandy, Tennessee, UK, UGA, UF, Bama, Auburn, Ole Miss, Miss St, LSU
B10: Penn St, Ohio St, Michigan, Mich ST, Purdue, IU, Illinois, Minnesota, Iowa, Wisconsin
Pac10: Washington, Wazzu, UO, ORSt, Cal, Stanford, USC, UCLA, Zona, AZ St
SWC: OU, OKSt, Arkansas, UT, TX A&M, TCU, BU, TT, SMU, Houston
Big Country: Utah, BYU, CU, Colorado St, KU, KSU, NU, Mizzou, ISU, Northwestern
12 team playoff, 7 auto bids, 5 at large.
Separate G5 playoff.
Yup. That's the winner right there. A perfectly continuous Midwest/Great Plains conference with no Texas schools or anyone too far east either.Add Illinois and the Buffs and I am game.