Conference Re-Alignment Thread Part Who Knows

[TheGamingChef]

Re: A&M to the SEC starting to blow up again on Twitter

But anyway, with a 12 team conference, there will be a true champion.

Actually, this is the case with a 10 team conference that plays 9 conference games.

And before someone makes the argument about a potential three-way tie... that is twice as likely to happen in a two division setup with a championship game, when determining who wins the divisions in the first place.

Round robin is the fairest way to determine a champion.

[simgamer0005]

Re: A&M to the SEC starting to blow up again on Twitter

Arkansas and A&M left basically because one school (UT) dictates how things work in the conference. DeLoss Dodd, UT AD likes to state as much, often saying "We are the Jonses.". Arkansas left before thet got screwed over, A&M's leaving before they get screwed more with the unequal revenue sharing and constant shadow Texas casts.

i don't know but is that a good reason to leave a conference to join another? shouldn't threatening to leave the conference be a last resort? it seems that it's all too common these days. so your rival is hogging the spotlight? i don't know the revenue sharing policy of the BigXII, but one would think with Nebraska and Colorado leaving it changed the dynamics. it would make sense considering we are so close to the season with these rumors coming out. i thought the only thing that mattered was making money? apparently, it's more then just making money, but how it is allocated. there was once a time where issues like this never seemed to creep into football. there was a time where you just went out there and played the game of football. yeah i know things have changed, but saying that doesn't solve the problems that exist today. i'd like to know more about this unequal revenue sharing favoring Texas like you say there is in the BigXII. Is this legit or just sour grapes? do you think this could be a result of Nebraska and Colorado leaving or has this always existed?

all i know is that a few weeks before the season starts it's not typical for there to be major conference re-alignment talks. that's for the offseason, and we've already had more of that this off season then we've ever had in any off-season ever. this is the time where squads should be focusing on preparing for the season. the landscape it becoming hardly recognizable from what it once was and there doesn't seem to be any end to it. even if the expension ended today, we still have a situation where the BigTen has 12 teams and the Big12 has 10 teams and Colorado and Utah are in the Pac-10, i mean the Pac-12. i can hardly imagine what it will be like heading into these new championship game weekends where the Pac-12, SEC, and BigTen are having championship games. After witnessing the challenges of the BCS before the conference re-alignment, with so much uncertainty heading into the season, it's hard to think about what that will be like. at least before we knew what the standards were, now we're sure to have more new standards based on this new landscape, and no one will know what will happen until the voters decide who they think should play in the conference champions and in the BCS Championship Game.

i wish the ncaa and conferences knew to leave well enough alone. the game would have continued to grow and prosper. i think that's all any fan wants for its favorite game. Shouldn't Texas A&M and Texas try to work things out? If Texas A&M leaves, won't there be a lot of bitterness and resentment there? it seems like every team that moves to a conference creates another another team thinking about moving to another conference. even if they stopped now, we're still left with what we have. and we should try to make the best of it, but i just don't think we can turn a blind eye to the amount of ridiculous things that have happened and continue to happen in or around college football.

[simgamer0005]

Re: A&M to the SEC starting to blow up again on Twitter

Actually, this is the case with a 10 team conference that plays 9 conference games.

And before someone makes the argument about a potential three-way tie... that is twice as likely to happen in a two division setup with a championship game, when determining who wins the divisions in the first place.

Round robin is the fairest way to determine a champion.

Yeah I happen to agree, but were you saying this a few years ago when your conference had a conference championship game and divisions? I think divisions with BCS tiebreakers and conference championship games are done solely to make more money. playing a round robin is the fairest way to determine a champion. it's unfortunate that the conferences that traditionally determined it's champion this way have expanded into having divisions with new teams, and one of the conferences that had a championship game, now are not allowed to have a championship game and have no choice but to have a robin and talk about how much better that is. (even though it's true, that is the fairest way to crown a champion)

[TheGamingChef]

Re: A&M to the SEC starting to blow up again on Twitter

Yeah I happen to agree, but were you saying this a few years ago when your conference had a conference championship game and divisions?

I absolutely was, but I recognized that CCG's are all about $$$.

I thought the Pac-10 had it right. Now they've sold out.

At this point I am glad the Big XII is doing it the right way, regardless of the reasons why. It's my opinion that 10 is the perfect number for a conference. Why have a conference if you don't play everyone?

That's why the concept of a 16 team conference is mindblowing. We will have teams in the same conference, who will have athletes enter the program and graduate without playing against some schools in the same conference. That is absolutely ridiculous

[DonkeyJote]

Re: A&M to the SEC starting to blow up again on Twitter

I absolutely was, but I recognized that CCG's are all about $$$.

I thought the Pac-10 had it right. Now they've sold out.

At this point I am glad the Big XII is doing it the right way, regardless of the reasons why. It's my opinion that 10 is the perfect number for a conference. Why have a conference if you don't play everyone?

That's why the concept of a 16 team conference is mindblowing. We will have teams in the same conference, who will have athletes enter the program and graduate without playing against some schools in the same conference. That is absolutely ridiculous

Again, as a Pac 10 fan, I always hated it. A tie at the top (even if it is "broken" by head to head) is frustrating. The 9 game schedule (adopted in 2006, I believe) was much better than the 8 game schedule where you missed a team every year, but nonetheless, I prefer the Championship being won head to head in December, rather than in a game in October or on separate fields late in the year. Championship Games are exciting and full of drama. It's funny that people clamor that College Football needs a playoff, and then hate on Championship Games.

[superjames1992]

Re: A&M to the SEC starting to blow up again on Twitter

I am a big fan of round-robin scheduling lack the Big 12 and Big East do (and the Pac-12 used to do). I am definitely NOT a fan of superconferences. It is stupid to be in the same conference if you do not even play that team for several years running.

I am not a big fan of the Big East de facto Superconference in basketball, but at least with 18 conference games, it is not like you go years without playing teams like the 16-team SEC would result in, most likely.

[Freakydeaky9]

Re: A&M to the SEC starting to blow up again on Twitter

Firstly, let me say I think bigger conferences are better. I'm not sure yet if 16 is better than 12, but being a Pac 12 fan, and living on the West Coast, I can tell you that I am much more excited about a 12 team conference than a 10 team. As far as the Pac 12 alignment, it is what it should be. The farthest 2 teams in South (USC and Colorado) are 1029 miles apart, and in the North (WSU to Stanford) 904 miles. If the bay area and new schools were swapped, it'd be 1364 in the north (Seattle to Boulder) and in the south 860 miles (Berkley to Tuscon). That's about a 300 mile cumulative difference. I guess they could've called the divisions "Desert" and "Forest", but they figured "North" and "South" was simpler. Guess not....

But anyway, with a 12 team conference, there will be a true champion. No more co-champions, no more ties. I don't know about you, but I hate ties. This eliminates that, for the most part. And you're talking about BCS standings breaking a tie? To my knowledge that has happened exactly one time, and it was in the Big XII South when there were three teams that had all played and beat each other. How do you think it would've been different if they were in a 9 team round robin conference instead of a 12-team divisional conference - they still would be tied and they'd still need weird tiebreakers.

As far as the "proposed" Super-SEC (I say proposed because I won't believe A&M is in until I see the press conference, and I'm certainly not buying the other three at this point - it makes sense, but at this point, it's speculative, and the reports say the SEC will pursue, not that they will accept). I see a few ways to do the schedule. One would be to play the 7-in division games, and 2 crossover. Another would be to bump it up to 10 conference games, and add a protected rival.

A third, and this one is out there, is to make it a World-Cup style tournament. Every offseason, you set up 4 pools. They all play each other early on. The top 2 in each pool move on into 2 new 4 team pools. They all play each other. Top 4 move on to a 4 team tournament, with the SEC Title game being the final. When you get knocked out of a pool or tournament, you play consilation games, and those are still important as they will have an impact on the pool you are in the following season. Now, I'm sure you guys notice this provides a maximum of 8 games, including the SEC title game. I say you add in a protected rival in there, or, you just tell your conference they are now free to schedule up to 5 OOC games.

Another way to go, would be to have two divisons of 8 teams, with 2 crossover games, that change every year or every couple years to keep it fresh.

I agree with you on that statement seeing as I am also a west coast fan. But for the sake of fun lets say the PAC-12 wanted 16 teams and got TTU and Texas or Baylor. Would you be opposed to the idea to invite Nevada UNLV or Boise?

[Freakydeaky9]

Re: A&M to the SEC starting to blow up again on Twitter

Also after this is over by next summer, Does anyone see KU KSU ISU and Baylor landing in the MWC? if TTU goes to the Big East, Texas goes Indy and OU OSU and Mizzou go to the SEC

[simgamer0005]

Re: A&M to the SEC starting to blow up again on Twitter

Firstly, let me say I think bigger conferences are better. I'm not sure yet if 16 is better than 12, but being a Pac 12 fan, and living on the West Coast, I can tell you that I am much more excited about a 12 team conference than a 10 team. As far as the Pac 12 alignment, it is what it should be. The farthest 2 teams in South (USC and Colorado) are 1029 miles apart, and in the North (WSU to Stanford) 904 miles. If the bay area and new schools were swapped, it'd be 1364 in the north (Seattle to Boulder) and in the south 860 miles (Berkley to Tuscon). That's about a 300 mile cumulative difference. I guess they could've called the divisions "Desert" and "Forest", but they figured "North" and "South" was simpler. Guess not....

Any way you slice it, Colorado and Utah remain geographically north of Cal and Stanford. the divisions may have been a good compromise, and Utah and Colorado should bring some good football to the Pac-10, but i just thought that fact spoke to how these things are patched together in any way necessary to get a conference championship game.

But anyway, with a 12 team conference, there will be a true champion.

I don't know how you have a true champion if the team that wins the championship game has more conference losses than other teams in the conference.

No more co-champions, no more ties. I don't know about you, but I hate ties. This eliminates that, for the most part. And you're talking about BCS standings breaking a tie? To my knowledge that has happened exactly one time, and it was in the Big XII South when there were three teams that had all played and beat each other. How do you think it would've been different if they were in a 9 team round robin conference instead of a 12-team divisional conference - they still would be tied and they'd still need weird tiebreakers.

I think the whole I hate ties thing is kind of the rationale that led to a lot of this. Soccer has ties and it's the most popular sport in the world. college football used to have ties and things seemed to get along just fine. The problem I have with the BCS tiebreaker is that the tiebreakers aren't based on what happens on the field. Even in the NFL, you aren't waiting for voters to potentially determine who wins a division in a conference. You got many tiebreakers that are a result of what happened on the field. Not that college football needs to be more like the NFL, but I like how you know the scenario going into the game and know won the conference or division when the final game is played, without having to wait for a BCS ranking. (even if it doesn't happen every year, just that the possibility exists) I just think there's something fundamentally wrong with the whole idea of dividing a conference. Why should conference be divided anyway? In a 9 team round robin, you have more games to separate the teams in the standings. the head to head tiebreaks apply since you play every team and that usually would settle it. the key is that everyone plays each other. if its a 3 team tiebreakers, you can go to record between the tied teams or record vs common opponents or some other on the field or traditional tiebreaker. anything is better than leaving conference championships up to voters. that way one team doesn't get to lose 2 or 3 games and still play for the championship because their division was weak one year. if you lose 2 or 3 games in your division, chances are you aren't competing for the national championship. and the championship game ends up being a question of will that team upset a team trying to get to the national championship. but now with all these conference championship games, now i bet if you play a 2 or 3 loss team in a conference championship game, that could actually hurt you. (where in the past it never seemed to matter that since contenders from other conferences with less than 12 teams weren't playing during championship weeks) in a real round robin, or even just a conference without divisions or a championship game, you know that each game is huge and when you check the standings, you see where your team is in relation to the other teams in the conference, not just the 5 teams you are grouped with.

A third, and this one is out there, is to make it a World-Cup style tournament. Every offseason, you set up 4 pools. They all play each other early on. The top 2 in each pool move on into 2 new 4 team pools. They all play each other. Top 4 move on to a 4 team tournament, with the SEC Title game being the final. When you get knocked out of a pool or tournament, you play consilation games, and those are still important as they will have an impact on the pool you are in the following season. Now, I'm sure you guys notice this provides a maximum of 8 games, including the SEC title game. I say you add in a protected rival in there, or, you just tell your conference they are now free to schedule up to 5 OOC games.

This actually is probably the fairest way to do it for super conferences. in theory, i like it. at least this way, you can know what you have to do. but this would create all sorts of logistical and scheduling problems. if you are using the world cup model though, you gotta remember that they have W-L-D points standings and tiebreakers based on point differential and goals scored. it would take a dramatic shift in committee based logic to ever see college football adjusting to this. if you're asking me what's a better tiebreaker, BCS rankings or point differential, i'd choose point differential. but with everyone worried about running up the score and excessive celebration penalties taking away touchdowns, I just think things are way too convoluted for anything like this to be agreed on. it would seem that so many other basic things would need to be reconciled before something like this would be on the table. it is a good idea though and think it actually would be more fair then the current division setup with the conference championship game. also, it would change the whole idea of a conference regular season, since there would be only 3 games scheduled in each pod.

Another way to go, would be to have two divisons of 8 teams, with 2 crossover games, that change every year or every couple years to keep it fresh.

I say just keep the conferences at less than 12 teams to avoid a conference championship game and all the loops and clutter you have to go through to accommodate that. that would keep things simple. i think the conference championship game is the source of so many problems in college football, as if it didn't have enough problems. and the solution? we get more of them. go figure.

[DonkeyJote]

Re: A&M to the SEC starting to blow up again on Twitter

I agree with you on that statement seeing as I am also a west coast fan. But for the sake of fun lets say the PAC-12 wanted 16 teams and got TTU and Texas or Baylor. Would you be opposed to the idea to invite Nevada UNLV or Boise?

Yes I would be opposed to any of those teams. I don't think they're premier football programs, and none of them really offer anything beyond that. If the Pac 12 expands, there are only two teams I'd want - Oklahoma and Texas. I'd take Notre Dame, but I feel that is so beyond the realm of possibility, it's not worth even wishing for. I would take Ok State along with Oklahoma, only because I think that's the only way to get the Sooners and I'd let Texas pick any team they want. I don't care which one. But if it doesn't mean Texas and Oklahoma, I don't want 16. I personally think 14 is the best number - it'd probably, in either case, mean a big realignment. In 16, it's easy - the Original Pac 8 in one, and the new schools and the Arizona schools in the other. Done and done. With 14, one of the tradition West-Coast rivals (LA, Bay Area, Oregon, Washington) have to get split up. That gets tricky, but I don't know if it's better to add two small time schools just to avoid doing that.

Here's the three scenarios I could see happening if (and that's still a big if) A&M goes east, and if (and that's an "if" of the highest order) Missouri, Clemson, and FSU go to the SEC.

1) The Big XII folds. Oklahoma, uncertain of the future of the conference heads to the (if they drop their AAU requirement, which they might since Nebraska just lost their AAU standing, and I don't believe Notre Dame is AAU). Ok State follows big brother. If Oklahoma goes to the Big Ten, Texas follows, and I believe Notre Dame will finally cave and join the Big Ten. Kansas and K-State join the Big East. One more team (maybe Villanova, Iowa St, maybe someone else) joins the Big East, giving them 12 and a Conference Title game, probably at the Meadowlands, or, maybe Yankee Stadium. The ACC, stuck at 10 and now unable to poach Big East teams because that conference is actually stronger now (especially with a possible TV deal with NBC), maybe pick up UCF and ECU, or some other teams that don't really belong in big time College Football to get back to 12, or maybe stay at 10, since their title game has largely bombed anyway.

2) The Big XII stays together, and adds BYU and Boise St. Gets back to 10 teams. The ACC poaches at least two Big East teams (from the list of Pitt, Cinci, WVU). The Big East brings in lesser football schools, and becomes a non-factor in the BCS. All settles down.

3) The Big XII folds. Oklahoma is still aprehensive about the Big XII's future. But the Big Ten won't drop the AAU requirement, so Oklahoma brings Ok St. to the Pac 12 (14). Texas can't hold together a now 6 team conference, Kansas and K-State bolt for the Big East. The ACC suffers the same fate as situation 1 - bring in lesser teams or roll with 10. Texas has 3 options. Go to the Big Ten (possibly getting Notre Dame to join, which would get the Big Ten to 14 teams, where I think they'd stop), take Texas Tech and go to the Pac 12 (14) and get it to 16 teams, or go independent, since they are one of the very few programs that could do that and survive.

I don't think (aside from the SEC) that the conferences really want or need to go to 16 teams. I think the Pac 12 will only do it to add Oklahoma and, especially, Texas. The Big Ten I think would only do it to add Texas and Notre Dame (Oklahoma and Oklahoma State might help that cause). If they can do that at 14, I think they'd be super pleased with that. The Big East will get as big as it can. I don't think they can get to 16 without really diluting the conference. They are looking for a big tv deal, and they need expansion more than anyone else right now. I don't think the ACC will go past 12. Maybe to 14 if the Big East can't expand, and they can take the strong Big East schools.

I think that if the Missouri to SEC ever comes to fruition (and to be honest, I'm not so sure at this point that it will), the next big domino is Oklahoma. They will decide the fate of the Big XII (which will give them a ton of leverage over Texas). I don't think the Big XII can survive with Texas, Tech, Baylor, Kansas, K-State, Iowa State, BYU (?), BSU (?), and two more teams.

[DonkeyJote]

Re: A&M to the SEC starting to blow up again on Twitter

Sim, you've got to realize something. BCS Standings are rarely used, and the only two times I can recall it happening, it's been in the case of three teams that had all played each other. How does that have anything to do with the bigger conferences?

I also disagree that the Pac 12 is "patched" together. I personally feel both schools fit in very well. The biggest reason the California schools were separated was that everyone wants to play in California every year. No major traditional rivalries were split up. And the big difference in latitude you're talking about is approximately 2.5 degrees - about 175 miles, tops. That's pretty negligible.

[Chrisksaint]

Re: A&M to the SEC starting to blow up again on Twitter

The fan in me wants this to happen so LSU can give A&M a yearly beating and for FSU to join within the next year or two so I can attend SEC games during my stay at FSU(I'd so love an LSU@FSU game lol)

The other part of me just says no to all this.

[AuburnAlumni]

Contrary to what some outlets are reporting, TAMU to the SEC is not a done deal...yet.

http://www.dallasnews.com/sports/col...-on-monday.ece

Dude it's done.

[Redacted01]

Re: A&M to the SEC starting to blow up again on Twitter

Dude it's done.

No it's not. It's assumed done, probably about 99%. The SEC has to approve it (don't see why they wouldn't as they were interested in A&M last year) and A&M has to approve it. Both will probably happen, but they haven't happened yet.

[TDenverFan]

Re: A&M to the SEC starting to blow up again on Twitter

I agree with you on that statement seeing as I am also a west coast fan. But for the sake of fun lets say the PAC-12 wanted 16 teams and got TTU and Texas or Baylor. Would you be opposed to the idea to invite Nevada UNLV or Boise?

I could see Reno or Boise, but I don't see UNLV getting in. Their Football play is way subpar and their basketball hasn't been top notch for a while.

Also after this is over by next summer, Does anyone see KU KSU ISU and Baylor landing in the MWC? if TTU goes to the Big East, Texas goes Indy and OU OSU and Mizzou go to the SEC

Yes. I believe the MWC had talked with those schools.

I absolutely was, but I recognized that CCG's are all about $$$.

I thought the Pac-10 had it right. Now they've sold out.

At this point I am glad the Big XII is doing it the right way, regardless of the reasons why. It's my opinion that 10 is the perfect number for a conference. Why have a conference if you don't play everyone?

That's why the concept of a 16 team conference is mindblowing. We will have teams in the same conference, who will have athletes enter the program and graduate without playing against some schools in the same conference. That is absolutely ridiculous

How? Over 3-5 Years (Redshirt/Leaving Early) and 9 OOC Games, how will you not play everybody?