Conference Re-Alignment Thread Part Who Knows

[Tovarich]

The 4 conferences can break away if they have 12 or 14 or 16...or if the 2 teams left in the WAC wanted to break away and Idaho wanted to play New Mexico State for their own little national championship every year, nothing is stopping them either. I don't get the obsession everyone has that everyone needs to have 16. I get someone from the SEC is pushing for that, and obviously if that passes, then everyone better get to 16. But as long as you have divisions, you can have a conference championship game. If you want a 3-game conference championship, a conference can simply have 4 divisions of 3 instead of 4 divisions of 4. It's not as nice of a round number, but its purpose is the same. Or you could do 3 divisions and let a wild card team into your little 4 team conference title. 16 isn't a must unless someone phrases the rule that way, and that to me seems unnecessary.

[simgamer0005]

Quote: Originally Posted by Tovarich

The 4 conferences can break away if they have 12 or 14 or 16...or if the 2 teams left in the WAC wanted to break away and Idaho wanted to play New Mexico State for their own little national championship every year, nothing is stopping them either. I don't get the obsession everyone has that everyone needs to have 16.

I also don't get the obsession of having 16 teams. The idea would have sounded crazy if you wrote that 5 or 10 years ago. 16 teams in a conference, "pffft" is the response you'd get to that at a tailgate in 2002. of course now it's reality.

Quote: Originally Posted by Tovarich

I get someone from the SEC is pushing for that, and obviously if that passes, then everyone better get to 16. But as long as you have divisions, you can have a conference championship game. If you want a 3-game conference championship, a conference can simply have 4 divisions of 3 instead of 4 divisions of 4. It's not as nice of a round number, but its purpose is the same. Or you could do 3 divisions and let a wild card team into your little 4 team conference title.

I also don't get the obsession of conference championship games in college football. i know, money. but seriously i think the fact that the NCAA stated you had to have 12 teams in a conference to have a CCG is what is driving a lot of this re-alignment. i mean it seems so worthless to play a meaningless game instead of deciding the conference championship by who won the most games throughout the conference season. and the counter argument to that is well there's too many co-champions. at least co-champions are fair i mean. how is a 5-3 team beating a 7-1 team and "winning" the conference better than sometimes having co-champions? Also don't they realize that the more teams a confernce has the more chance of having co-champions. i mean if you only have 8 teams in a conference or something, the probability of having co-champions is much lower.

it just seems like an addiction to get to 12 teams at whatever cost to get this conference championship game, to get more money for your confernece at the expense of logic. take the B1G for example, yeah just add Nebraska and split it up into Leaders and Legends, and boom there you go now you have a true conference championship game. it's like the whole thing is honestly crazy that like it's to a point to where you just can't take it seriously anymore. and now this push to 16 teams, the idea of four 4 teams divisions within a conference is mind boggling to me. i mean really. we don't even have a playoff in college football but now we're going to have semi-finals within a conference. and then if you "win" the conference you still might not have a chance at the national championship. the whole thing is so far removed from a logical way to progress that all you can do is just kind of sit back and watch it all unfold.

Quote: Originally Posted by Tovarich

16 isn't a must unless someone phrases the rule that way, and that to me seems unnecessary.

16 teams in a conference is more than just unnecessary. it's changing the entire idea of what a conference is. it would be better to just split 16 teams into two conferences of 8 teams, with no conference championship game. that way you play 7 games (like the Big East) and bam the team with the best record wins the conference.

i mean look at the scenario we had this past season with 12 teams and two 6 team divisions, with Bama not winning their division, not even playing in their conference's CCG and still making the national championship. that's with 12 teams, imagine the scenarios that could happen with 14 teams or if you go to 16 teams. the best time in college football was when things weren't changing from year to year and you really could prepare for a season and know what you were dealing with. (because you knew the situation the previous year and it was the same) now it's like lets try this lets try that. this thread's title says it all. conference re-alignment thread part who knows. that says it all. who knows what will happen next, just when you think it can't get any more bizarre it does. and even if all the re-alignement stopped tomorrow, we're still left with a situation that is so far out there from what it used to be about.

[Tovarich]

I hate conference championship games as well. I much preferred the perfect round robin the PAC had before. That to me is much more reflective of who the winner is than divisions, especially with how the SEC East shaped up last year. Georgia didn't have to play Arkansas, Alabama or LSU, but South Carolina did have to play at least one of those teams, and so even though South Carolina had a perfect record against their division, Georgia wins the division because they had easier games against the other division. With unbalanced schedules, conference title games to me are not true champions. Yes, an breakable tie is theoretically possible in a perfect round robin, but it sure beats watching a team who went 8-0 in their conference have to play some 5-3 team.

The WAC had 16 teams for 3 years, and look how that went. Was that really too long ago for administrators these days to remember?

[DonkeyJote]

Quote: Originally Posted by Tovarich

The 4 conferences can break away if they have 12 or 14 or 16...or if the 2 teams left in the WAC wanted to break away and Idaho wanted to play New Mexico State for their own little national championship every year, nothing is stopping them either. I don't get the obsession everyone has that everyone needs to have 16. I get someone from the SEC is pushing for that, and obviously if that passes, then everyone better get to 16. But as long as you have divisions, you can have a conference championship game. If you want a 3-game conference championship, a conference can simply have 4 divisions of 3 instead of 4 divisions of 4. It's not as nice of a round number, but its purpose is the same. Or you could do 3 divisions and let a wild card team into your little 4 team conference title. 16 isn't a must unless someone phrases the rule that way, and that to me seems unnecessary.

I'm not really sure of that obsession either. If the Pac 12 had been able to get the Texas and Oklahoma schools, I would've been okay with it, just because those programs are so strong, and I'd love to see those matchups. But I don't understand it beyond adding the really big time conferences. I don't understand what makes that a magic number. Heck, wouldn't an 18 or 20 team conference make even more sense than a 16? Play everyone once, then have a conf champ game? I don't get what makes 16 a magical number.

My point is that, if the SEC is trying to get a clause in the playoff saying a 16-team conference gets an automatic bid, and everyone else is on their own, then 16 does become a magic number. And everyone will have to get there or be left out in the cold. You could see the Pac 12, B1G, Big 12, and SEC break away, imo. I think it's pretty obvious, especially with the Big 12 and SEC setting up that game, that they'd like the football playoff to be determined between those 4 conferences.

[simgamer0005]

Quote: Originally Posted by Tovarich

I hate conference championship games as well. I much preferred the perfect round robin the PAC had before. That to me is much more reflective of who the winner is than divisions, especially with how the SEC East shaped up last year.

yeah the Pac 10 was great. every team played each other. at the end of the regular season you knew who was the best, and you didn't need a conference championship game.

Quote: Originally Posted by Tovarich

Georgia didn't have to play Arkansas, Alabama or LSU, but South Carolina did have to play at least one of those teams, and so even though South Carolina had a perfect record against their division, Georgia wins the division because they had easier games against the other division.

That's a really great example. South Carolina beat the other 5 teams in their division. if you have 6 teams, and you want to decide who is the best out of those 6 teams, all you need is 5 games. The games vs the other division just dilute the goal of being the best team in your division, especially when you are dealing....

Quote: Originally Posted by Tovarich

With unbalanced schedules, conference title games to me are not true champions. Yes, an breakable tie is theoretically possible in a perfect round robin, but it sure beats watching a team who went 8-0 in their conference have to play some 5-3 team.

They're not true champions at all. we always hear about how important the regular season is in college football, but then a team that is like 5-3 can beat a team that went 8-0 and they "win" the conference?

if you really are going to have 16 team conferences, then the only thing that would make any sense is to split it up into two 8 team divisions, and have a 7 game conference season (not 8 games) where you just play everyone in your division. that way it's balanced and almost like it's its own conference. having an 8th conference game serves no practical purpose in a 16 team conference, unless you go the route of having 4 four team divisions. but it would be totally unbalanced that way, even more unbalanced then the 12 team SEC was. (because with 4 four team divisions, you would only play 3 division games, and 5 games vs teams in other divisions) that's even more unbalanced then the example you gave of South Carolina beating every team in their division but not winning the division.

[CM Hooe]

Quote: Originally Posted by p_rushing

UVA benefits from having FSU, UM, and Clem drive up the TV numbers. A lot of schools in the ACC are benefiting from those schools. Those schools though are losing money as they could be getting more somewhere else. If those schools leave and UVA doesn't, UVA will lose any chance at making a profit and all those improvements may not happen if they don't have money.

Over $10M of the required $13M has already been raised. The facility is going to get built.

It helps that the Virginia Athletics Foundation is surely among the best fundraising bodies for a collegiate athletic program in the country - the VAF does not receive any money from The University itself - and the alumni base of Virginia is both large (at least 160,000) and far-reaching. By no means the largest in the country - UVa doesn't have the undergraduate throughput of a very large school like Ohio State or Michigan - but very large nevertheless.

To the argument of TV markets, the largest Virginia alumni bases are in DC, New York City, Richmond, Atlanta, and Baltimore. I'm not going to sit here and say that Virginia is a media behemoth like Texas, but there are plenty of people who will tune in to watch UVa play.

Then there's that whole deal of being attached to the hip with Virginia Tech and the College of William and Mary, which I've mentioned a few times. The leaders of these schools are very connected and very involved in political matters in the state. None of those schools are going to make a drastic move without ensuring the solvency of the others. The state politicians likely won't allow it either.

Virginia will absolutely be just fine. Anyone who doesn't see this isn't looking beyond the recent win-loss record of the football team, and we actually performed pretty well this year, lol.

With that, I'm done talking about UVa; I'm sure some of you are sick if, haha.

[The GIGGAS]

Quote: Originally Posted by CHooe

we actually performed pretty well this year, lol.

November 26th.

Just a friendly reminder.

[TheRegan]

Quote: Originally Posted by simgamer0005

They're not true champions at all. we always hear about how important the regular season is in college football, but then a team that is like 5-3 can beat a team that went 8-0 and they "win" the conference?

Aren't Conference Championship games considered part of the Regular Season though? They seem to make the words "Every Game Counts" matter even more.

Quote: Originally Posted by simgamer0005

If you really are going to have 16 team conferences, then the only thing that would make any sense is to split it up into two 8 team divisions, and have a 7 game conference season (not 8 games) where you just play everyone in your division. that way it's balanced and almost like it's its own conference. having an 8th conference game serves no practical purpose in a 16 team conference, unless you go the route of having 4 four team divisions. but it would be totally unbalanced that way, even more unbalanced then the 12 team SEC was. (because with 4 four team divisions, you would only play 3 division games, and 5 games vs teams in other divisions) that's even more unbalanced then the example you gave of South Carolina beating every team in their division but not winning the division.

So your suggesting that you have 2 separate conferences play each other for a conference chamionship? Also, scheduleing imbalance seems to happen in every sport, especially with the interleague games and unbalanced divisions in the MLB. And in South Carolina's case, losing to Auburn and Arkansas is just part of "Every Game Counts".