Conference Re-Alignment Thread Part Who Knows

[Hooe]

Re: Conference Re-Alignment Thread Part Who Knows

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]

Re: Conference Re-Alignment Thread Part Who Knows

we actually performed pretty well this year, lol.

November 26th.

Just a friendly reminder.

[TheRegan]

Re: Conference Re-Alignment Thread Part Who Knows

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.

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".

[simgamer0005]

Re: Conference Re-Alignment Thread Part Who Knows

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

Conference championship games actually make it so that one game is more important than the 8 games in the regular season. if every game counted, then a team that went 8-0 would be the champ by winning the conference out right and the 5-3 wouldn't have a chance to win one game and be "champ".

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".

Actually i'm not a fan of interleague play in baseball. in the old days you only played the teams in your league. it was more balanced, and the whole point of the regular season was to figure out who the best team was in your league.

in the old days, the leagues weren't split up into divisions. each league was essentially one large division. and the winner of the league went directly to the world series. regular season record decided everything. the schedules were balanced since there was no interleague play and it was fair. if you have the best record after 162 games, why should you have to beat teams with lesser records in a 3 out of 5 series just to get to the AL or NL CS? even up until the mid 90's each league only had two divisions, an east and west and there was no wildcard. that was still much better than how it is now. now it's gotten crazy with wildcards and hasn't the playoffs been expanded further for this season? having all these teams make the playoffs in baseball dilutes the regular season.

i agree that schedule imbalance does seem to happen in every sport, but it's gotten that way progressively over time. So, South Carolina losing to Auburn and Arkansas may be part of "every game counts", but the point is that Georgia didn't have to play Arkansas. the schedule became unbalanced because they played teams outside of their division. it's similar to how inter-league play unbalances the baseball schedule. because if the goal is to be the best team in your league, then what is the purpose of playing teams from another league? that's why there's a world series. for the best team in one league to play the best team in another.

i remember when the mets played the yankees in the world series. it was cool but it was kinda not as good as it could have been because they already played in inter-league during the regular season. it was fun back in the day before inter-league because the teams that met in the world series would be meeting for the first time all year. and you didn't know how the teams would match up and that was the fun of it. inter league has only been around for a decade or so. before that it never existed. it was done to simply make more money, to sell tickets. some fans like it but to each their own.

[Tovarich]

Re: Conference Re-Alignment Thread Part Who Knows

While I'm ranting against the obsession over having 16 teams, I'm going to move my rant to a different obsession that is really the problem: divisions.

Why are there divisions at all?? The NCAA rule says two divisions for a title game, but why? Why does any sport have divisions? I get it if you want to have them theoretically for scheduling purposes to cut down on travel etc. But why do NBA and NHL teams automatically get a 3 seed for winning a division even though they really are 6th or 7th in points? Why did the 7-9 Seattle Seahawks get in the playoffs? On top of that, why did they get a home game? Don't care that they beat a dome team who travelled 2000 miles in the cold, the result doesn't mean they ever deserved to be there in the first place. The Saints won 12 or 13 I think that year, Seattle was a losing team, but because they played in the worst division in the history of football, they get a home playoff game? Why do baseball teams who go 83-79 get in the playoffs because they beat 4 crappy teams in their division while teams who won 90+ get left out? 12 teams, 14 teams, 16, whatever...just put them all in one big group, and have 1st play 2nd, or if you want to drag it out, 1st play 4th and 2nd play 3rd. It was apparent last year in the SEC that the 3 best teams were all in the same division. It was apparent that in the PAC, that Oregon and Stanford were the two best teams. I could do without these division thingies except for theoretical scheduling purposes.

[gordogg24p]

Re: Conference Re-Alignment Thread Part Who Knows

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?

I'm pretty sure everyone remembers, but the WAC didn't have the kind of money that the B1G, Big 12, PAC 12, or SEC would have with a 16 team model. And with how money drives today's college football, that could be reason enough to deal with the issues the WAC faced.

[p_rushing]

Re: Conference Re-Alignment Thread Part Who Knows

16 teams gets conferences 3 games for their championship and they don't have to share the money with anyone. That is a lot of money for conferences and they have full control over it. Plus you have the added benefit of getting even more money for the TV rights.

[GeneralMike]

Re: Conference Re-Alignment Thread Part Who Knows

16 teams gets conferences 3 games for their championship and they don't have to share the money with anyone. That is a lot of money for conferences and they have full control over it. Plus you have the added benefit of getting even more money for the TV rights.

NCAA still has to approve having conference semifinals. I don't see them allowing it.

[Perfect Zero]

Re: Conference Re-Alignment Thread Part Who Knows

The NCAA exists because the colleges allow the NCAA to exist. If they want a semi-final, they're going to get it.

[RebelHog]

Re: Conference Re-Alignment Thread Part Who Knows

NCAA still has to approve having conference semifinals. I don't see them allowing it.

Actually no they don't. The NCAA does not govern the Bowl Championship Series. That is governed by the Bowl Alliance.

[DonkeyJote]

Re: Conference Re-Alignment Thread Part Who Knows

Actually no they don't. The NCAA does not govern the Bowl Championship Series. That is governed by the Bowl Alliance.

I think he's talking about a conference have a 4-division set-up and a 4-team playoff to determine a conference champion. And so, yes the NCAA would have to approve. And the NCAA would also have to approve a national tournament, since you're talking about potentially adding a game to the schedule for a team, increasing the number of games a team plays. They'd have to extend the number of games allowed or teams would be forced to cut a game from their regular season schedule to accommodate. I don't see the NCAA not doing that, but they do have a say in all of this. Not to mention the Bowl Alliance hasn't existed since 1998 (the Bowl Championship Series is it's own governing body). And any new post season game is subject to approval by the NCAA.

[TDenverFan]

Re: Conference Re-Alignment Thread Part Who Knows

The Miami AD says they like the ACC and will stay committed.

[khaled]

Re: Conference Re-Alignment Thread Part Who Knows

The Miami AD says they like the ACC and will stay committed.

I don't like Miami in the Big 12, especially with the NCAA trouble hanging over them. FSU on the hand...

[LionsFanNJ]

It wouldn't surprise me when all the dust settles the BE and ACC end up merging. Especially if FSU bolts out of the ACC. Probably won't happen in the end though but stranger things have happened.

[Cusefan]

Re: Conference Re-Alignment Thread Part Who Knows

It wouldn't surprise me when all the dust settles the BE and ACC end up merging. Especially if FSU bolts out of the ACC. Probably won't happen in the end though but stranger things have happened.

good thought but what exactly does the BE offer that the ACC needs(I can only think of the BE Bball tourny). If the ACC wants a BE team, they get that team. The BE still has schools of value(RU, UCONN, UL) so I don't think FSU leaving would break the ACC.