How 16-team super-conferences should work...

[BigAppleBadger]

Not two divisions of 8 teams. Four divisions of 4 teams.

Hypothetical example (if the B1G added ND, Texas, Oklahoma and Kansas):

Southwest Division
Texas
Oklahoma
Kansas
Nebraska

Northwest Division
Wisconsin
Minnesota
Iowa
Northwestern

Northeast Division (note: ND and the 3 B1G teams they play now)
Notre Dame
Michigan
MSU
Purdue

Southeast Division
Ohio State
Penn State
Illinois
Indiana


You play the 3 teams in your division every year, and the 12 teams in other divisions every other year (9 conference games in total). That's better than 8 team divisions, where you play the same 7 teams every year, and at most 2 teams in the other division each year. You play everybody every two years, instead of every four years.


Now here's the best part - with 4 divisions, instead of just a conference championship game, you have a semi-final and a championship. It adds one more game for the two best teams in the conference. Not a big deal and means something to do the second weekend of December.


Imagine the Big Ten, SEC, Pac-12 and ACC each go to 16 teams using this format. After the conference semi-finals and finals, the SEC champion plays the ACC champion (at the Sugar Bowl) and the Big Ten champion plays the Pac-16 champion (at the Rose Bowl). The winners of each of those two games play in the national championship game (rotating location).

Boom, you've got a season-long 64 team tournament. It's like March Madness but multiple elimination and 4 1/2 months long.

The teams that played in the title game would end up having played a total of 16 games, including the post-season, but there's 2-3 weeks off before the last couple. Everyone other than the 4 conference champions would play the same slew of bowl games we have today (other than the Rose and Sugar).


To be fair, there could be a rule that if there is an "at-large" FBS team outside of these 4 conferences that is undefeated (like a Boise or TCU), then the conference champion with the worst record loses their spot. So let's say Alabama wins the SEC at 14-0, Stanford wins the Pac-16 at 13-1, Wisconsin wins the Big Ten at 13-1 and FSU wins the ACC at 12-2... if Boise State is undefeated, they play Alabama in the Sugar Bowl with a title berth on the line.


Opinions?

 

[Forty_Sixand2]

Essentially if you have four 16 team conferences, it will end up being 8 conferences with little overlap between each side of the conference. However nobody in the conferences can bitch about not getting a fair shot at the title, if it leads to a playoff.

You would play everyone in your mini-conference.

The winners of the mini-conferences would play in their CCG.

The final 4 would play in a three team playoff.

Nobody can complain.....

 

[goDAWGSsicem]

Not two divisions of 8 teams. Four divisions of 4 teams.

Hypothetical example (if the B1G added ND, Texas, Oklahoma and Kansas):

Southwest Division
Texas
Oklahoma
Kansas
Nebraska

Northwest Division
Wisconsin
Minnesota
Iowa
Northwestern

Northeast Division (note: ND and the 3 B1G teams they play now)
Notre Dame
Michigan
MSU
Purdue

Southeast Division
Ohio State
Penn State
Illinois
Indiana


You play the 3 teams in your division every year, and the 12 teams in other divisions every other year (9 conference games in total). That's better than 8 team divisions, where you play the same 7 teams every year, and at most 2 teams in the other division each year. You play everybody every two years, instead of every four years.


Now here's the best part - with 4 divisions, instead of just a conference championship game, you have a semi-final and a championship. It adds one more game for the two best teams in the conference. Not a big deal and means something to do the second weekend of December.

Imagine the Big Ten, SEC, Pac-12 and ACC each go to 16 teams using this format. After the conference semi-finals and finals, the SEC champion plays the ACC champion (at the Sugar Bowl) and the Big Ten champion plays the Pac-16 champion (at the Rose Bowl). The winners of each of those two games play in the national championship game (rotating location).

Boom, you've got a season-long 64 team tournament. It's like March Madness but multiple elimination and 4 1/2 months long.

The teams that played in the title game would end up having played a total of 16 games, including the post-season, but there's 2-3 weeks off before the last couple. Everyone other than the 4 conference champions would play the same slew of bowl games we have today (other than the Rose and Sugar).


To be fair, there could be a rule that if there is an "at-large" FBS team outside of these 4 conferences that is undefeated (like a Boise or TCU), then the conference champion with the worst record loses their spot. So let's say Alabama wins the SEC at 14-0, Stanford wins the Pac-16 at 13-1, Wisconsin wins the Big Ten at 13-1 and FSU wins the ACC at 12-2... if Boise State is undefeated, they play Alabama in the Sugar Bowl with a title berth on the line.


Opinions?

Something to do in December? How about exams?


I don't know if they would ever allow 16 games a year.

 

[ForkEmBucky]

I've thought about it too. I actually proposed a regionally based 20 team conference thing, pulling every single FBS program into a grouping of 5. (minus Hawaii and someone else I think).

Everyone laughed at me. I cried for days.

 

[BigAppleBadger]

Essentially if you have four 16 team conferences, it will end up being 8 conferences with little overlap between each side of the conference. However nobody in the conferences can bitch about not getting a fair shot at the title, if it leads to a playoff.

You missed the point about having each conference divided into 4 subdivisions of 4 teams instead of 2 divisions of 8 teams. The point of that is that you would play everyone in the conference at least every two years, instead of every four years, by reducing the number of teams you play year in, year out.

I don't want to have Wisconsin only play Ohio State or Michigan every four years. But playing Minnesota, Iowa, Northwestern (maybe switch them with Nebraska for balance) every single year and playing everybody else every other year would be killer. You'd have to make sure Michigan and OSU played every year though.

I don't know if they would ever allow 16 games a year.

It's two more games. And not both added consecutively.

 

[ForkEmBucky]

See. I always thought it could work. Especially if you still have some bowl games for bragging rights... And you set up the first round of the playoffs to coincide with the old bowl system. Should keep the bowl people happy.

 

[BigAppleBadger]

I've thought about it too. I actually proposed a regionally based 20 team conference thing, pulling every single FBS program into a grouping of 5. (minus Hawaii and someone else I think).

Everyone laughed at me. I cried for days.

Because you probably ignored existing conference relationships (which are not going anywhere), and because the extra 36 teams that would include are useless.

The key is to arrive at something like a playoff while still working within the traditional conference system. That is not going to change.

 

[goDAWGSsicem]

I've thought about it too. I actually proposed a regionally based 20 team conference thing, pulling every single FBS program into a grouping of 5. (minus Hawaii and someone else I think).

Everyone laughed at me. I cried for days.

LOL

http://www.sportshoopla.com/forums/college-football-forum-message-board-general-discussion/40119-super-conference-re-alignment.html

 

[BigAppleBadger]

LOL

http://www.sportshoopla.com/forums/college-football-forum-message-board-general-discussion/40119-super-conference-re-alignment.html

Never, ever, ever happening, and nor should it.

First of all, none of the current Big Ten teams will ever be separated from each other. You took Wisconsin, Iowa and Illinois and put them in a separate conference from Michigan, Ohio State and MSU?

Illinois and Ohio State have been football rivals since 1902 (the Illibuck trophy game).

Similarly, I'm sure Arizona, ASU, Utah and Colorado would willingly be sheared off from the Pac-12 and replaced with the likes of Hawaii, Idaho and SJSU.

Second, what are most of these teams even doing in the discussion? There are about 40 teams in your divisions that aren't part of the super-conference alignment or any playoff system that arises from it.


There are a few basic tenets that need to be respected if you're going to come up with ideas for this, and one of them is that the current membership of the Big Ten, Pac-12 and SEC WILL stay intact. No team is going to leave or be kicked out of any of those there conferences.

 

[Forty_Sixand2]

I posted my version as well, check it out....

 

[goDAWGSsicem]

Never, ever, ever happening, and nor should it.

First of all, none of the current Big Ten teams will ever be separated from each other. You took Wisconsin, Iowa and Illinois and put them in a separate conference from Michigan, Ohio State and MSU?

Illinois and Ohio State have been football rivals since 1902 (the Illibuck trophy game).

Similarly, I'm sure Arizona, ASU, Utah and Colorado would willingly be sheared off from the Pac-12 and replaced with the likes of Hawaii, Idaho and SJSU.

Second, what are most of these teams even doing in the discussion? There are about 40 teams in your divisions that aren't part of the super-conference alignment or any playoff system that arises from it.


There are a few basic tenets that need to be respected if you're going to come up with ideas for this, and one of them is that the current membership of the Big Ten, Pac-12 and SEC WILL stay intact. No team is going to leave or be kicked out of any of those there conferences.

So what are you going to do with the 60+ teams not included in your plan?

My list clearly was not how things should be, but rather just a list to show the logistics of super conferences.


Also, it's quite funny that you say the Big 10 teams would never leave each other, I bet Big 12 fans would have said the same thing 6 years ago.

 

[BigAppleBadger]

So what are you going to do with the 60+ teams not included in your plan?

They continue to play in whatever conferences and whatever bowl games they play in now. Only a few of them have a realistic shot to ever compete for a national championship, and there is a way for an at-large to get into the semi-finals.

Also, it's quite funny that you say the Big 10 teams would never leave each other, I bet Big 12 fans would have said the same thing 6 years ago.

For how long have you been watching football? The Big 12 has only been around for 15 years. It's always been an unstable combination of what was left of the old Southwest Conference (which never really worked) and the Big 8.

You're comparing that to the oldest college athletics conference, 9 members of which have been together for over 100 years, and which has a close research and academic partnership in addition to sports?

Personally I wouldn't care if it got rid of, say, Purdue, but it will never, ever happen. The existing membership is inviolable. The Big Ten is the most stable of all the conferences by far.

I notice you didn't fuck with the SEC's membership.

 

[TigerBait1971]

LOL

http://www.sportshoopla.com/forums/college-football-forum-message-board-general-discussion/40119-super-conference-re-alignment.html

LOL at waterboy's comments in your thread....

 

[tabascojet]

Something to do in December? How about exams?


I don't know if they would ever allow 16 games a year.

dont they play 16 games in FCS? why not FBS?

 

[BigAppleBadger]

dont they play 16 games in FCS? why not FBS?

This.

And it's not like they're adding 2 more games in January (going all the way to the end of the month), or 2 more in December (going all the way until finals week, the week before Christmas break). It's one each, so there's still a week off before finals and the season only ends one week later.

You're really just shortening that horrendous month off between conference championships and New Year's Day bowls by a week.